Hillary Accuses Trump of Racism in New Ad
Is she wrong?
Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign unveiled a nasty new ad.
The ad shows various white nationalists and members of the alt-right voicing support for Trump, who they believe represents their values. Also featured is Breitbart News’ Steve Bannon, who recently joined Trump’s presidential campaign.
Why do so many Ku Klux Klan members support Trump?
"A lot of what he believes, we believe in." https://t.co/AqB3DLKL9f
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 25, 2016
There’s a lot to unpack here. Hillary’s ad isn’t all wrong, it’s also not all right.
Unlike any other presidential candidate in recent history, Trump has emboldened and empowered the oft racist and anti-Semetic alt-right.
Anyone who spends a fair amount of time on social media and is critical of Trump has likely had a run in or few hundred with the alt-right crowd. They’re a nasty bunch that enjoys preaching about the victimization of the white race, using “Jew” as a slur, and resorting to threats of rape should one disagree, even in the most cordial of fashions.
How large the alt-right is in real life, I have no clue, though I suspect they’re smaller in number than their social media activity would imply. Regardless, they’ve created a formidable web presence through the course of this election cycle. All of that to say — the alt-right does love Trump and they are racist, in the most literal of senses, not “racist” circa the 2008 election.
Also true is that Trump has not disavowed his alt-right following, despite numerous pleas to do so. Trump has also caused a stink on more than one occasion by retweeting alt-right run accounts from his personal Twitter account.
What do we make of all of this? Irrespective of candidate or party (and frequent readers are well aware of my disdain for Trump), there are few tactics I loathe more than guilt by association.
So a bunch of racist kooks like Trump, does that make Trump a racist kook? Hardly. Basic logic explains that much. For years the media has stoked the race fire, up shows Trump, talking about big beautiful walls, and the disenfranchised, mostly forgotten white middle class (which hey, actually exists), and a gross fringe group sees a hero.
To be clear — like the Birchers before them, the alt-right should be purged from the right. Conservatism is no home to those who view the world through the prism of race or religion. Period. End of discussion.
Clinton didn’t stop with the ad though. She gave an entire speech elevating the alt-right to the national platform, harping on Trump’s alleged association.
From WaPo:
During a speech in Reno, Nev., Clinton went big. And she almost seemed to take a page out of Trump’s playbook, using bold claims and the power of suggestion to paint a dark picture of a Donald Trump who isn’t just an unwitting bigot, but rather someone deliberately advocating racist policies and fomenting extremism in the United States.
“Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough,” Clinton said. “But what he’s doing here is more sinister.”
She said Trump is a man with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination in his business dealings, who is “reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.”
She said people who are thinking it’s all bluster and that he might change his ways are hoping against hope.
“But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump,” she said. “This is it.”
Her full speech is here:
Is Trump racist? Hell if I know. What I do know is someone like Hillary is the last person on the face of the planet who ought to be lecturing anyone about inappropriate relationships. I mean hello! Huma Abedin, Sydney Blumenthal, Bill Clinton, Russian uranium purchasers, the list goes on and on and on. If Trump had any reasonable campaign infrastructure, his campaign could and should be highlighting those real (not imagined) nefarious relationships of Hillary’s.
But if we’re going to play the Who’s More Racisty? game, then I submit this video of Hillary calling Senator Robert Byrd, former KKK member, her “mentor”.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, as long as we’re bringing up Hillary’s KKK associations here’s something I just saw on another site: KKK leader endorses Hillary for president.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton/
I doubt Der Donald is himself a racist.
I don’t doubt for a moment his alt-right base is racist. They say so, outright.
They well may be racist. But, I like how Shakespeare put it in Henry V when Henry says …
What I would say in return is that if Der Donald is to be attacked for his supporters, then Hillary has to answer for the Black Panthers too.
I’d agree totally with that…if Hellary had put Black Panthers in the vanguard of her campaign.
Good point.
But I am still ticked by the Black Panther in 2008 at the poll that was never prosecuted by Obama because … the DoJ is rigged now.
The cynic in me says they don’t need to be in the vanguard anymore to be with Hitlery.
Me too. And they weren’t even in the vanguard of Obama’s campaign.
Der Donald is not any more racist (given the role he’s currently in.) than you might be.
He can’t control the people who endorse or support him, just like he control who hates him. He didn’t attend any of THEIR rallies. Are whites that afraid of being called a racist nowadays? Fight back. Stop allowing people label you as a racist and get away with it.
And in case you may be wondering, the answer is no. I am not white. I am an African American or a black guy…
I’m guessing her ad doesn’t mention her self-professed mentor, Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd.
Remember Shaidle’s First Law For Understanding The Collective:
“It’s different when we do it.”
Besides, the Grand Cyclopes evolved…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE
Spoken so well by hilldog. She talks about her first day in the Senate she sought out his advice and mentoring.
I don’t see Trump as a racist, however he actively courted the AltRight. My guess is he thought it would help him solidify the white vote when, in fact, the exact opposite happened.
Also, the AltRight sees him as a dictatorial figure, so for them it’s not just about the big beautiful wall.
so, does that mean the “AltRight” is racist simply because of the demographic? Can we say the same for #BLM?
AltRight is racist and they themselves say so, only they prefer more Orwelian-sounding terms like “race realism” (look it up on Twitter, for instance).
That BLM is racist does’ make AltRight any less racist.
Trump ‘actively courted AltRight’? Hahahah… what does that mean?
You sound like one of those lost tribes of Cruz.
John Batchell (who, as you all recall, is the Chairman of the Communist Party USA) has announced that he’s voting for Hillary. (Oddly enough, he’s not wallowing in this election’s favorite useless activity, moping for a candidate who isn’t there. Bernie’s off the radar, so he’s going with someone who isn’t. Oddly practical, for a Communist.)
So … does this make Hillary a Communist?
No. It makes her someone a Communist can support.
Some of us will NEVER vote for a Collectivist of any stripe.
So…
Trump claims Hillary is a criminal, and shows the criminal conduct that proves his point.
Hillary claims Trump has nasty thoughts, and points to other people who have nasty thoughts and support him for president.
One of these behaviors is illegal. The other is just bad.
He only became a racist when he started to run against a Democrat.
Is he a racist? If he was and the Democrats and their useful Fools in the media had actual proof they would be parading it every minute of the day through TV and social media.
The very fact they are reduced to claiming this mythical beast called the Alt Right is racist is proof enough that the Donald IS NOT a racist. As always, there is no substance to their baseless claim and just shows how out of ideas they really are.
Mailman
Most sensible post award!
mailman you got it!
^^^The Thread winner!^^^
Ding!!!
Actually, he was a racist 40 years ago when he refused to rent apartments to blacks. That is documented.
I guess that now you can change you argument to “Well, he used to be, but …………….”
Did he say that he did not rent the apartments to blacks?
How do you know his intentions were to not allow blacks to rent his apartment?
Were you reading his mind? Are you a ‘thought police officer’? Does this role actually exist?
Judging by you tone and your other comments, I expect that anything I write will be batted down like a volleyball. But I will make 1 attempt.
To begin with, the regulators looked at the composition of his buildings and found they were segregate as a matter of fact. Next the regulators tried speaking to them about the Trump’s policies and were stonewalled. Finally, they sent in testers that were matched as closely as possible for age, sex, family size, income, etc. They tried this many times over a period of time and established a pattern where non-white candidates were rejected or steered to a couple of run-down buildings in segregated neighborhood.
If they owned 1 building, it might be argued they had some right to discriminate. But they were 1 of the largest landlords in the city and were the beneficiaries of subsidies and tax abatements. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
There are other articles http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
I am sorry these are NYTime and WaPo, but you aren’t going to see them on Breitbart or Drudge. I suggest give them the smell test. Do they seem likely? Are the facts verifiable from other sources?
This is too good not to post. The author was commenter The Count of Monte Cristo on Breitbart:
That is a great quote, but it leaves something out.
WHAT we discriminate over is pivotal. In fact, it is essential.
Exactly. Discriminate on the content of a person’s character, not the color of his skin.
And what was that about the Tramp campaign manager saying that he ran Breitbart (Andrew is rolling in his grave) as a platform for AltRight?
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/08/26/trump-camp-pretends-theyre-unfamiliar-alt-right/
But discrimination based on prejudice is not only wrong, but stupid. If you pick your doctor based on skin color, you might pick a good-looking, male, white who is a hack. But at least he will look the way you want your doctor to look.
The problem with your entire statement is that the words you use have to be defined. What is racism and what is prejudice? If you and I have different meanings for those two words then we will never agree. Is prejudice another form of experience? Like when jesse jackson said that if he saw a group of young black men coming his way on the street he would move to the other side? Is that prejudice or intelligence? When you go into a black neighborhood after dark and get mugged and the cops tell you that you shouldn’t have gone there, is that prejudice or intelligence? If you base your decisions solely on skin color, is that racism or intelligence? I am not expressing an opinion on either of these words but a lot of beliefs come from experience and only a fool goes through life waiting for each encounter to tell him whether or not it was smart to do it. Would you walk up to and use your ATM at night with a young black guy standing a few feet away from the machine wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets? If not what do you call your actions? As to skin color and occupations then I have no opinions ie, a doctor or auto mechanic since I have had no negative experience with either. But there are situations that we all know we should not go there. Can that be called racism or prejudice? It is so easy to throw out hurtful words when the heart of the accused may be purer than the heart of the accuser!
“What is racism and what is prejudice?” No, those terms don’t need to be defined for the vast majority of people. Whether they are pejorative or justified might warrant an argument, but not the definitions. You merely argue that some discrimination is justified because it is not based on prejudice. I think you are right. But when it is generalized to a whole class of people, it is wrong and unlawful – even if a particular jaded cop were to say otherwise.
In addition, you & I are not running for President. I think Clinton was saying that Trump believes that whole groups of people are inferior and deserve a subordinate position in our society because of the color of their skin or their heritage. He is free to make a speech or statement denying that – as Obama did when he disavowed Rev. Wright. That speech was a turning point in his campaign.
There is no single piece of evidence that should be used in support of her statement; unless Trump came right and agreed. Some of his statements seem to come pretty close, but I would argue that Trump’s behavior and statements going back over all of his adult life support her assertion.
I see no point in enumerating all of his recent statements, tweets, re-tweets and feigned ignorance. What person Trumps age claiming to be a competent candidate for President has never heard of David Duke? Whether Trump has a duty to disavow an avowed racist is arguable, but claiming he never heard of him is laughable.
By coincidence (maybe not if you believe the NYTimes coordinates with Clinton) there is an article about Trump & his dad’s discrimination against blacks going back 50 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html There are other articles about this and the vehemence with which the Trumps fought against integrating.
Whether they were right or wrong is for each voter to decide. On the same note, whether it is right to be a racist is for each voter to decide. The point is that Trump is a racist.
My original point was that prejudice based on racism is stupid and counterproductive and that a candidate who does that is unacceptable.
I agree that it is probably not smart to withdraw money from an ATM while anyone dressed in a hoodie is loitering nearby. Do you really care if he is white or black?
Ooh, fun discussion. One thing that is worrying to people, like conservatives, who are not racist is the frequency with which this epithet is shrieked by the left (we hear it as RAAACIST! and kind of giggle); every single thing under the sun is related to race, and whites (all whites, including those who are leftists themselves, though they haven’t figured that out yet) are so racist, it’s so ingrained in them, such a part of their very being that they don’t even know they’re RAAAACISTS! Imagine that! Millions upon millions of Americans who are born racist . . . without even being aware of it until they get to kindergarten and are informed of it by their teacher. By then, it’s too late, though, those little RAAAACISTS are guilty of . . . well, you know, stuff. And those five- and six-year-olds must be put firmly in their place and stripped of any vestiges of self-esteem.
The things that have been labeled “RAAAACIST” off the top of my head: someone noted that Obama put a basketball court in at the White House and liked to play basketball (RAAACIST!), conservatives don’t support Obama’s progressive agenda . . .they must be RAAAACISTS!, pointing out that the most economically-devastated cities in America are run by Democrats (RAAACIST!!!), “nude” pantyhose that most closely resemble the flesh color of white people–RAAAACIST!!!, supporting school vouchers and school choice . . . RAAAACIST!!!, suggesting the diabolical idea of actually enforcing our nation’s existing immigration laws (what’s more RAAAACIST than that?!), enforcing laws that do not allow non-citizens to vote in elections (that’s what’s more RAAAACIST!), noting that all lives matter (RAAAACIST RAAACIST SPREADING RAAAACISM!!!), describing a person as black or African-American (even if you’re law enforcement and just received a BOLO, mentioning the way a non-white person looks is RAAAACISM SQUARED!, mocking an insane black woman who wears tampons as earrings on her national cable news show (RAAAACIST!! and let’s throw in SEXXXIST for good measure). I could go on, but it only devolves from there to football team names, painting your house white, and saying aloud the words “watermelon” or “fried chicken.” Just typing that sentence makes me a RAAAAACIST even though these are actual examples of lefties pouncing on white pols or public figures.
So, I think it’s not a stretch to think that some people are indeed very confused about what racism is. Indeed, racism by anyone who is non-white is actually not racism at all; it’s standing up to the white male dominant culture and refusing to be othered by speaking truth to power.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that the word has lost its meaning and impact. Actual instance of actual racism are ignored, the little boy called “RAAAACIST” a time or two thousand too often. No one comes running anymore, and even non-racists don’t care if they are called racists. (Actual racists are quite proud of their racism and see it as a badge of honor–that hasn’t changed at all.)
So what is the definition of racism these days? It appears to be white people existing.
That said, I agree with you to a certain point regarding Trump. He does strike me as someone who believes certain groups of people are inferior; the bone I would pick here is that it’s not based on race as much as on economic status and power. It can be based on gender or physical / mental challenges. It is certainly based on ideology (Trump has famously berated Romney in 2012 for not peddling the Obama birther nonsense to the “right wing crazies.”). He’s incredibly condescending of anyone in “flyover country”; remember him announcing how much he loved some state and that he’d buy a big farm there he loved it so much? Trump won’t buy a single piece of dirt in any state unless it’s with other people’s money and he can kick a bunch of old people out of their ancestral homes. In other words, what you and the left perceive as racism is just Trump being an incredible narcissist who truly believes everyone is beneath him. Everyone. Young, old, male, female, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, left, right . . . everyone is inferior to the Donald. That’s not racism. That’s a severe personality disorder complicated by arrested development that has left him with the mentality (and vocabulary) of a 12-year-old.
@Fuzzy Slippers I do hope this is fun and you are not being sarcastic. This isn’t changing a lot of minds. It isn’t even being read, by many, once it rolls off the 1st page.
“is the frequency with which this epithet is shrieked by the left” The right launches epithets. Some guy on this site keeps calling me a ‘commie’. The epithets are not going to win elections.
“those five- and six-year-olds must be put firmly in their place and stripped of any vestiges of self-esteem.” 1st of all, that was done to generations of African-Americans and they were even treated as inferior. Those who fought to rise above that were often thwarted or even killed. It is not right for the shoe to be on the other foot. But ‘me thinks you protest to much’.
BTW, I was brought up in NY. But in the neighborhood I lived, the only blacks I saw were porters. Even NYC garbage men were all white; as were the police and firemen. I didn’t have a black in my classroom until I went to what would today would be called a ‘magnet’ school today. I wasn’t so much racist, as I didn’t think about it at all. The question is what did I learn when the civil rights movement kicked into high gear starting in the ’60s. I didn’t feel resentment. I felt there had been injustice and it needed to be corrected.
Certainly all lives matter. But the slogan “Black live matter’ doesn’t claim that other lives don’t. I wonder if some of the outrage you feel isn’t that you see equality as a setback to whites. I agree that some of the extreme positions taken in the name of equality are absurd. Extremes generally are.
I also agree that calling Trump a racist is not a particularly fruitful line of attack. Your last paragraph is much better and more accurate. But Hillary doesn’t consult me. I don’t think she is winning. I think Trump is losing.
ORDA, definitely not being sarcastic. I love to share ideas and to discuss important issues (and unimportant ones, too, for that matter).
A random commenter calling another random commenter a “commie” is hardly in the same league with politicians, the media, and an assortment of public figures screeching “RAAACIST” at every little thing. But I’m sure you realize that and are just deflecting. Or trying to.
Ah, so it’s whitey’s “turn” to be oppressed, silenced, and ostracized? Got it.
I no longer feel any outrage about this issue in general terms, though I am outraged that small children are being told they are evil–there is no justification for that. None. Not even your lame “well, two hundred years ago, other white people did the same thing to black people.” That’s childish and illogical. If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. You don’t fight or correct an injustice by being unjust, by becoming the very thing you claim to loathe and revile.
I used to be outraged years ago, but as I noted, it’s totally lost any effectiveness it once held. I’m merely pointing out that your assertion that “we all know what racism is” is faulty and why it’s so. I was outraged then because the accusation was (back then) hurtful, and it was hurtful because it was untrue. Being called a racist back then was a horrible thing (unless you actually were a racist, in which case you smiled happily and said, “Damned right!”). Now, however, with the absurd blanket of RAAACISM the left has wrapped around our entire society and culture, it’s not hurtful. It’s ridiculous and laughable.
You wrote: “I wonder if some of the outrage you feel isn’t that you see equality as a setback to whites.”
This is absurd on a number of levels. First, I value equality and champion it at every turn. That’s why I oppose affirmative action, “hate” crime laws, generational welfare, eliminating school choice and forcing the poor and minorities into substandard schools, and other such things designed to ensure that equality can never be achieved.
Equality has nothing to do with setting anyone back; it has everything to do with treating everyone the same, offering the same opportunities, education, and etc. You don’t get anything resembling equality by treating minorities like they are incapable, unintelligent, or otherwise impaired and inferior. Yet that’s exactly what leftist policy does. Lifting people up is a far more fruitful and fulfilling way of achieving equality than tearing others down. But maybe that’s just me.
@Fuzzy Slippers – I didn’t think you were being sarcastic, but I was covering all bases. This site tends to be a hostile environment for me, but nothing you specifically said deserved that. My apologies.
I am having trouble, though, with your claims that reasonable positions are being called racist. For one thing, I am not a fan of epithets in general, and that one in particular. There may be politicians and demagogues who use that term and I may tune them out; even if they are nominally on my side of the debate. By the same token, the term ‘politically correct’ does bug me. It is likely I am only hearing the part that bugs me.
I think Clinton’s attack on Trump that claimed racism, was crass and ineffective. I agree with you that Trump can be attacked on more specific grounds. But Hillary is not a good politician. She is undoubtedly, getting help from her husband. He should know better. I would guess that she is reading the polls and is willing to throw up anything in the hope of maintaining her lead and running out the clock.
As to the question of whether fairness disadvantages any group: In the short run I maintain that we live in a zero-sum game. If only one group is allowed to own property or work in a profession, then a change that allows all groups to own property or work in a profession would remove an advantage from some. In the long run, we do not live in a zero-sum game and equality benefits everyone. Ben Carson was a benefit as a doctor. As a politician? Not so much.
The problem is that the long run requires vision; and well, time. I don’t know how one bridges that gap when (for instance) there are people who would have been admitted to the U of Texas, who are not. Clearly if you have a policy of admitting the top 10% of each school, there are people who went to a superior school that will suffer. Is the solution to throw out the selection process, or to bring up the lessor schools?
I went to a school that would today be called a ‘magnet’ school’. For reasons of anonymity, I don’t wish to name it. How far ahead we were was clear when a subway strike sent me to the local high school for a week. I hung out with a friend and attended his classes. My education was clearly light years ahead of the local school and the teachers quickly noticed. But I barely made the top 10% at my school. Given that, a valedictorian from Wyoming had a better chance of getting into a Ivy League school than I did. I did get into a top college, but it wasn’t a fair competition. In addition, I was offered no scholarship, although we were middle class – not rich. My point? There is no such thing as fairness.
Actually, my uncle was bitter that his son (my cousin) was not chosen for head of the physics department at his university because of ‘affirmative action’. My cousin laughs about it. He joined NIST where he is head of a department in his area of interest. He had an experiment on the Space Station. He refuses to retire even thought he is 75 and more than financially comfortable. The cream will rise to the top unless you keep shaking the bottle.
ORDA, I think your comments are thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I enjoy hearing “the other side’s” point of view when it is presented without invective and vitriol (a rare rare thing).
Your point about equality being achieved only through time is correct, and with time and the freedom to do so, we can improve education in areas where the poor and minorities are stuck with horrific schools and the very worst teachers, we can incentivize work and aspiration rather than generational welfare, we can provide, in short, the same experience across the board that everyone is indeed treated equally and has equal opportunity.
That way, to use your example, the University of Texas can accept its top 10% of applicants based on their actually being the top 10%.
Unfortunately, the left wants to guarantee outcomes not opportunity, and therein lies the “problem” you note. To me, if the top 10% of UT applicants are all Asian or all white or all whatever, that’s not a problem. To you, and implicit in your example, they should be forced to accept specific percentages based on race rather than ability, intellect, preparedness, etc. That makes no sense to me and frankly, is a huge reason that college degrees have been devalued. It wasn’t that long ago that a college degree represented something in the job market; it showed not only the ability to stick to something for four years but also that one had the ability and ambition to succeed in a competitive intellectual market. Now, a college degree means little (or nothing, depending on the university), less in many cases than a high school education used to mean to employers. This trend is gradually moving up to masters’ degrees, as well, by the way. As we dumb down education to accommodate the incapable and those who are simply not suited to higher education, we get less. It’s inevitable.
How does this help those minorities and others–including white people–who are better suited to work in the trades or what we used to call vocational training and now sneer at as somehow inferior? They struggle through college–where the curriculum is dramatically less robust than it was even when I was in college, “earn” a degree, pile up tens of thousands dollars in debt, and enter the workforce, often unable to write a coherent paragraph or do simple maths.
This improves their lot in life how? This makes them “equal” in what way? They hold degrees that are just as worthless on the job market as those of white people. Yay!?
I had an interesting discussion with a proponent of affirmative action who literally said that some of her co-workers were so incompetent and unfit for their jobs that without affirmative action, her workplace would have no diversity. I’ve never heard a better argument for tossing affirmative action (and its mirror in university admissions) out the window.
We’re not going to agree on this point, of course, but I do appreciate your engaging in thoughtful and sincere dialogue that is not riddled with ad hominem. It’s truly refreshing and very welcome.
Oh, I didn’t address your point about my “claims” regarding reasonable positions being called RAAAACIST being difficult for you. This happens all the time. Conservatives who don’t support Obama’s progressive agenda are accused of not doing so because they are RAAAACIST. When it is pointed out that conservatives support black conservatives, the answer is invariably along the lines of “well, sure, he’s not even black-black; he’s a self-hating Uncle Tom.” I find it impossible to believe you are unaware of all this.
Here’re a few examples:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/13/311908835/race-alone-doesnt-explain-hatred-of-obama-but-its-part-of-the-mix
I love that one because it includes the hilarious idea, one you yourself implied, that conservatives dislike Obama not just because of his race (though that’s there, too) but because we’re so RAAACIST we hate him because he represents the “browning of America.” That’s ludicrous.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0223-grimsley-white-conversations-racism-20160223-story.html
That’s the always fun “you’re a RAAACIST and don’t even know it, you bigot.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/esquire-writer-on-newt-gingrich-it-was-the-racism-that-threw-me/
The media were publishing zillions of pictures of Obama on the basketball court at the time, and when Gingrich slammed that, he was called a racist. Here’s one link, but it was a huge “story” for about 18 months.
Just for fun:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/14/msnbc-host-melissa-harris-perry-star-wars-racist-because-darth-vader-black
https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/your-paint-may-be-racist/
Anyway, yes, it’s a fact that everything is RAAAACIST to the left, and you don’t have to be a conservative to be so-labeled anymore.
“Unfortunately, the left wants to guarantee outcomes not opportunity and circumstance” I have not heard this particular statement often but not given it much thought. But I think it hides a deeper point. It is not that the left seeks to guarantee ‘equality of outcomes’; it sees the lack of equal outcomes as proof that there was no equality of opportunity to begin with. Unless, one does believe that races are different and some superior (the very definition of racism), over time there should be rough equality of outcomes. Why wouldn’t there be?
We once accepted the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’. But that was a lie. Segregated Black & Latino schools were never equal. LBJ started his career teaching in a segregated Mexican school and it profoundly affected his future thoughts on civil rights.
Until we achieve rough equality of outcome, we have a duty to provide something extra to those who were discriminated against for generations. My parents could and did give me enrichment that minority parents simply can’t provide. It doesn’t mean that giving minorities a leg up will always succeed. So will simply be thrown into the deep end of the pool and flail. But some will succeed. Justice Thomas? Dr. Carson. They both claim they did it on there own. Nobody does it completelt on their own.
I have always had a theory that in close sporting contests it is pointless to blame the Umpire. If the game is so close it is a toss-up. The last bad call was not the only bad call. So claiming you were robbed, is a cop-out.
I feel the same about some kid who just missed the top 10% of her class. She is no star. Any number of factors determined that she just wasn’t the top. There are lessor schools for her to attend and fresh opportunities for her to rise.
As a New Yorker, I knew (in the 60’s) that my chances of getting into Harvard were much less than if I grew up in Wyoming. My SAT scores might have been higher and I might have gone to a more competitive and nationally renown school. But we all knew that Columbia would not take more than 60 students and that some of them would be fencers or other athletes. I went to a top-flight engineering college, instead.
All discrimination is based in prejudice. Question is, what kind of prejudice.
For instance, coming from a culture where abortion was so commonplace that most women were in double digits come menopause, I’m prejudiced against American women who shout out their abortions. I think they are obtuse. I’m also prejudiced against Wiccans whom I find geeky. I don’t think musing about an abortion you had in your Wiccan days, as you’d admitted a few days ago, helps your cause of making abortion cool.
As for discrimination based on race, I don’t know if you noticed, but you didn’t post anything we conservatives didn’t already say. Your help is appreciated but unnecessary. We have it covered.
Abortions in double digits? Please – I doubt there is one. If there is, it is interesting that she knows where to find an abortion, but not where to find birth-control or even the morning-after-pill (unless you count the latter as abortion).
Nobody can keep you from your prejudices. You will just shrink into a meaningless minority.
“they’re smaller in number than their social media activity would imply”
It’s bluster, too, similar to Trump. Compare it to extremists that support Clinton and scream “racist,” “fascist,” “Hitler,” and take their hatred into the streets and engage in violence and attempt to make America into what exists elsewhere.
The abortionists in a final solution, #CecileTheCannibal (Planned Parenthood), class diversity mongers, anti-native factions, female chauvinists, selective exclusionists (e.g. “=”), social justice adventurists/Libya-ISIS Affair, progressive debtors, and other Pro-Choice acolytes all vote Democrat. As did the KKK, and does the NCLR, CAIR, Black Panthers, SPLC, NOW, and other class diversity activists.
So is this the first time anyone else has heard the term “alt-right”? This reminds me of the I was in my 40’s and first heard the MSN talking about Ramadan for the first time in my life…and pretending it was in our everyday vocabulary all the while. So when did this “alt-right” come to be? Who are they? What are their websites? What do they represent?
I smell a rat, and it’s not me….
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/26/6-chilling-facts-about-the-alt-right/6/
You’ll have to page to the beginning, but that gives you a pretty good primer.
A great link. Two things to understand here:
1. AltRight bois have Republicans and conservatives more than any other group. They oppose individual rights, liberty and everything we stand for. We are their enemies, not liberals.
2. It doesn’t matter to AltRight if Trump wins or loses so long as he destroys the conservative movement because they hope to supplant us.
The term is fairly new, but the movement isn’t. The term is self-ascribed, meaning movement members themselves use it. It probably comes from them. After the Hillary speech the AltRighties launched #AltRightIs.
If you are interested in personalities, on Twitter, there is @johnriverstoo, Ricky Vaugn (forgot how he spells his name) and @Chernovich, a Jew with family history of mental health issues. Then of course there is Milo. Publications are Taki, VDare, American Reinassance.
Basically, they are trying to sell themselves as edgy, cool and young kind of people. Except they are not — Trump is fourth choice of Presidential candidate for the millennial generation, behind Hillary, Johnson and that Green granny.
I had some interesting run-ins with would-be AltRight in Death Rock clubs in San Francisco in the 90’s. They were called satanists back then.
The #never T-rumpers on this thread say they oppose Hillary as much as they oppose T-rump. Funny thing, they sure spend a disproportional amount of their time either agreeing with or defending Hillary and very little time in criticism of her.
Of course there’s very little time left over given all the time they spend trashing T-rump. I guess it’s a matter of priorities.
Who here agrees with or defends Hillary? I’ve read these comments, and I see no one doing so. Granted, I could have missed it, so would you mind providing links to the comments in this thread (or elsewhere in LI comments, for that matter) defending and/or agreeing with Hillary?
Fuzzy, you are breaking the agreement to not respond to windy. He is like the kid with a new water pistol and squirts everyone in the face.
Read InEssence & Barry that follow. You #never T-rumper, “constitutional conservatives” are using Hillary & leftist labels & terminology to define people who handed you your asses which has resulted in some of you hating us. This thread has a number of examples.
I stand by what I said. Further I’m not going to engage in any more repetitive interchanges involving circular logic that end up going nowhere.
I don’t want a problem with you Fuzzy. I hate no one. The rest of the parrot heads are a waste of my time. By what all of you #never T-rumpers are doing you own Hillary Clinton.
AltRight is not a term that Hillary made up. Again, check out #AltRight on Twitter. Try were posting about their issues under that hush tag since Twitter was around.
There you go again, assuming you know what motivates other people and what their emotions are. You sound paranoid… other people “hate” you. I don’t “hate” you and I doubt anyone else here does either. We may disagree strongly with your political point of view and most especially how you express it, but nobody “hates” you.
Further, you jump to conclusions as if you can brand anyone who disagrees with you as a #neverTrumper and then somehow you’re locked into a personal battle to the death with them. It all sounds very paranoid and delusional.
Many of us here have serious problems with “your” candidate. A few have declared they’ll not vote for Trump, but many have not said that but they continue to voice their concerns with the candidate. This is how our political system works. Hopefully Trump’s “people” are reading and listening to these concerns and they may adapt their positions to pull more voters in their direction.
But you, on the other hand, just spew paranoid and vindictive bullshit, bashing people who disagree with you over the head with one ad hominem attack after another.
If what you really want is for Trump to be elected, then you should just shut your mouth, put down your keyboard and go crawl under a rock until after the election because you’re convincing no one of anything, other than the fact that perhaps your’re a bombastic asshole.
You’re obsessed with the idea that people “hate” you… maybe you should stop trying so hard to make it true.
“Read InEssence & Barry that follow. You #never T-rumper, “constitutional conservatives””
Are you accusing Barry of being “NeverTrump”? Barry has been for Trump since the beginning.
I don’t *think* that is what he meant, but it is a bit confusing.
For the record, I haven’t always been for Trump.
I am a reformed Cruz supporter 🙂 I even donated $$$
I think it was October when I came to my senses.
Alt right is just something Hillary made up. It doesn’t exist. The election is between Global Elites, Clinton, and American Nationalists, Trump. If you don’t believe me, ask Nigel Farage. That is why immigration and trade are central themes. Clinton wants more illegals and free trade, whereas Trump wants less illegals and fair trade. Other than that, it’s mostly name calling such as extreme racism (the Dems always accuse that) and serial killers (Clinton has a reputation for that).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stdh7KNQetE
You need to educate yourself.
Yeah, that video was published 2 days ago. By now, I suppose “alt right” exists because HRC made it popular. This is not to say someone didn’t have a hash tag or label at some point with those words. Alt right still has no meaning. From Wikipedia,
‘The alt-right has no official ideology, with the Associated Press stating that there is “no one way to define its ideology”[26] and the BBC has called it an “amorphous movement”.’
So you see it is just a semantic distraction from the election. It goes about as far as HRC calling DJT a racist, when there are pictures on the Internet of HRC kissing the grand dragon of the KKK and calling him her mentor.
InEssence, the alt-right exists and has existed for quite some time. If you want to read about them from one of their own rather than from Hillary’s or a conservative’s perspective, try this link: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
You may be interested in learning about them from them, via one of their online publications: http://www.unz.com/
Do a teensy bit of research beyond Wikipedia, and you’ll be surprised at the alt-right’s presence (online at least).
I have heard of term, but as I have shown, “alt right” has no meaning. I put videos and comments on the Internet, so by your reasoning, my authority is unassailable. Pro-tip, HRC is wrong most of the time. You should question what she says and how she says it. “Alt right” has no meaning, regardless of whether HRC puts it into a speech. She was just talking nonsense as usual. Since the MSM has no idea what it means, then “alt right” has no meaning.
If you found some people online and formed a group called the Essential InEssence Club, the “Essential InEssence Club” would have meaning. It would be the moniker by which your group is identified and identifies itself; your club would have a website, social media presence, and grow and grow as you spread your Essential InEssence message. If the MSM never heard of your Essential InEssenceClub, would it cease to exist or become devoid of meaning? Would your group be rendered meaningless just because Hillary mentioned it in a speech?
If the alt-right doesn’t exist, then who are all these people who call themselves alt-right and have been doing so long before Hillary’s speech? Who is the author of the following article who self-identifies as alt-right strongly enough to write a “guide” to them on Breitbart News? http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
Or are you simply saying that it has no meaning to you because you refuse to acknowledge the alt-right? If so, that’s cool. Are there other words/phrases that describe political movements that have no meaning? What about “Tea Party”? What about “Occupy” and “Black Lives Matter”? All meaningless terms people apply to themselves and others whose worldview, agenda, ideology, etc. matches their own? I find this all very fascinating, to be honest. 🙂
“La, La, la…not LISTENING…!!! Can’t hear this…!!! Won’t investigate, no sireeeee bob. Where’s that sand for my head…??? No such thing, ’cause I didn’t see it ‘defined’ in my Wiki walk”.
Pitiful.
From your link, take the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. It is, “The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement.” Breitbart is agreeing with me that the movement has no definition.
Even in the comments on this article we have different ideas of what alt-right means.
HRC implied that Breitbart readers were alt-right, so for her, anyone who reads Breitbart is alt-right.
That HRC would use the term, “alt-right”, in her speech, is a significant reason that she can’t draw flies to her public events. She wants to stir up passion by using a term that has no common definition, but of course, her use of the word just sews confusion.
On the other hand, “tea party” identified itself with the Boston Revolutionaries of the same name. They obviously didn’t like taxes.
“Occupy” was the name of the street people who would trash public places by living there.
Neither Occupy nor Tea Party has an exact definition, but you could basically identify the name with only one group of people. “Alt Right” identifies with many groups of people, so that makes it confusing.
Well, not exactly. He goes on to say that the alt-right was obscure before it “burst onto the national political scene in 2015.” An inchoate entity can’t “burst,” so he’s simply saying that he’s going to explain something that people see as “amorphous,” thus his “guide to the alt-right.”
The Tea Party began as “taxed enough already,” but it wasn’t long before it attracted all sorts from social conservatives to limited government to fair and flat tax proponents to people who absolutely rejected ObamaCare and on. We were a movement, not a monolith, and many local Tea Parties didn’t identify with the Boston Tea Party or American Revolution at all. In this sense, it was “amorphous.”
It’s worth noting that the alt-right, when still obscure and lurking in the darker corners of the internet, tried to attach itself to the Tea Party. We rejected them when they showed up in their offensive tees and carrying nutso signs; sometimes they were tossed out because it was believed they were leftist plants and other times because they were alt-right people who didn’t belong in or with a conservative movement (and who only wanted in to take over and ride the Tea Party until it could “burst onto the national political scene”).
Occupy were not just “street people” who “trashed things.”
You are quite correct in noting that these groups weren’t just one thing, and that’s how the alt-right is, too. Not all of them are hooded racists burning crosses on people’s lawns, and not all of them think a dose of genocide is just what America needs to cleanse it. But they do have a unifying sense of themselves, just as the Tea Party did and does. You didn’t have to “join” the Tea Party; you just were Tea Party or not. Everyone found their own way to be a part of it. Some of us stuck to social media and blogging, some of us went to town halls, some of us marched and protested in D. C., some of us founded or joined local Tea Party groups to affect change at the very local level while others worked on the state or federal level, some of us got caught up in the money and power and some of us did not, some of us . . . . well, you know how it was. We were all different, had different reasons for being Tea Party, but we were all still Tea Party. If you asked ten Tea Party people in 2009 or ’10 what the Tea Party is and what it stands for, you’d get seven, eight, maybe even nine different answers. But there would be core principles that we all shared: the Constitution, liberty, the free market, and limited government. Generally speaking, the alt-right opposes these things.
As an interesting historical aside, the MSM was lumping us in with the alt-right even then; it was the crazies burbling about “sending Obama back to Kenya,” donning their tinfoil hats and screaming about how we were all going to be shuttled off to the gulag (or FEMA camps), and the like that the MSM held up as representative of us all. Andrew Breitbart got in their faces as much as he did the progressive left’s. He was infuriated by their attempts to hijack the Tea Party in its earlier days and railed against the imposters (who were often alt-right).
Anyway, I digress. I find your argument compelling and very interesting! I love discussing ideas like this. 🙂
Okay, I read the whole article. He defines several groups and loops them all into the alt-right.
Let’s go to mathematics and set theory. He define several sets that have very little overlap and encompasses all of those in super set that he calls alt-right.
It is unlikely that those sub-sets are traveling in the same direction, since they are so different. So the super set has to keep getting larger.
To me, the whole system is flawed. As they say in computer database language, you can’t get any kind of taxonomy on that.
It is not the alt-right that is driving Trump, it is American Fascism which assimilates unsuspecting Americans with politically correct speech. Americans are used to being assimilated with the American Constitution. We didn’t say the “Pledge of Allegiance” for nothing. For a long time, we have had nothing but PC politicians, so it seemed that fascism was inevitable. With Trump, perhaps the Constitution can become the rallying point of some political movement. That is the cultural movement behind Trump. People want their bill of rights back.
From the article, the Conservatives like something they are used to seeing. The Intellectuals and Meme guys like the freedom of speech and separation of Church and state. For example, the Intellectuals want the chance to say what they want about Islam and not get killed. In another case, the meme guys want to show Michele as a tranny which is the reason that Barack is utterly obsessed with common bathrooms, and not get in trouble for it.
Assimilation programs culture, or at least it attempts to do so.
…or EXACTLY what I said. They are nihilist. They are ANTI-ideological except for a few, basic notions. White supremacy (Blood), and ultra-nationalism (Soil).
You didn’t even listen to Milo, did you? Of course, a lot of what he said was pure nonsense, but he was telling you things. And you didn’t take in that this is a movement he credits for a major portion of the T-rumpian popularity.
So, you were WRONG about it being a “myth”. And you’re WRONG in trying to marginalize its influence.
You are actually giving Milo more authority than the AP and BBC? I have heard of “alt right” for a while, but it has no meaning.
I will OFTEN give my Golden Retriever more “authority” than the AP or BBC.
But, yeah, I KINDA DO give a guy who’s a recognized leader of a movement MORE authority than your Wiki sources. Which you FAILED to even understand. But you are just being obstinately ignorant. A trait I often see in your ilk. You guys wallow in it.
What’s with the volume of that recording? I can’t hear it at all.
alt right is just the term the nevertrumpers use to describe people that put America first.
They then use the same tactics of the left, disagree with us and that makes you a racist.
I bet there’s no such thing as Nationalist Populists, either, right, Barry?
Even though THAT is what Steve Bannon calls himself…NOT a conservative at all.
Just because you’re an ignorant phuc, doesn’t mean stuff doesn’t exist. You just aren’t very well read.
I don’t give a crap what the term may have been used for in the past, you nevertrump contingent have been using it precisely as I stated.
Hard to tell you from the left. Tactics much the same. You can call yourself anything you want, but it doesn’t change the nature of the beast.
Barry, can you fill us in on the history of the term America First?
Ouch.
Does it hurt much Fuzzy?
When people like you start to think the term “America First” is a bad idea the war has been lost and you a are a part of why.
edge is a kook.
I care nothing about the history of someone appropriating a perfectly good term. If you think the term “America First” is tainted, then I feel sorry for you. What country do you suggest we put “First”?
As a general idea, I agree with you, we should put the US interests first. However, America First means something particular in American history, and I urge you to research it because it was totally wrong, totally discredited and because it is tainted. Yet Trump evokes it deliberately as a node to his AltRight followers.
And “I care nothing” here’s the Know Nothings:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Fall over the cliff edge. I don’t need the help of a kook for research.
I used the term correctly, America first. Trump uses the term correctly. It’s not a dog whistle just because you haters want it to be.
You are all a sad lot, deranged. You, who has declared you will vote for shrillary.
Until HRC started to use the term alt right I had never heard of it and dare I say it but I suspect the vast majority of people had never heard if it either.
Edgeofthesandbox,your first point about the alt right is that you just succinctly explained the left in under 30 words.
Mailman
Not really. The alt-right is expressly racist, nihilistic (I doubt you’d find a religious alt-righter AND they don’t believe in much of any morality from what I’ve seen of their writings), and they also expressly reject both conservative and Collectivist ideology. Hence the “alt”, alternative, right.
If you’ve been reading the T-rumpian threads here the last few months, you’ll have seen them represented several times. I’ve smoked them out, and identified them as “Blood and soil” bois, as that is one of their themes.
Not according to Edgeofthesandboxes definition “They oppose individual rights, liberty and everything we stand for. We are their enemies…” This is a pretty accurate definition of left wing liberals.
Again, this comes back to a new definition created by Democrats who, to be honest, are grasping at straws. They must know they are in trouble otherwise they wouldn’t be throwing baseless accusations like this out there for the brain dead followers to swallow like a saturday night pick up. Also, projection…but we don’t need to go there just yet.
Mailman
Yeh, you aren’t getting it. The conservative movement and its ideology have always had more than one enemy to contend with, besides what you and I would call “Leftists”.
W.F. Buckley had the Birchers. Now we have these guys. And we have Nationist Populists.
https://soundcloud.com/conservativereview/levin-the-crucial-difference-between-nationalist-populism-and-conservatism
Exactly. They share a lot in common with the left. There is nothing traditionally conservative about them, hence the “alt” (also “alt” because they are hipsters, see Milo, for instance).
My larger point is that AltRight is here to blow up the conservative movement, they said so:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html
I hadn’t posted this 3 minutes & Chickenscat jumped in & gave it a downvote. Now do your duty parrotheads, & follow the lede of your Leader of the Flock.
Kimberly, are you paid by the Clinton campaign to write these posts?
Your posts are 90% attacks on Trump, with a tiny disclaimer at the end that you don’t like Clinton either.
Is Legal Insurrection really as stupid as Ragspierre to equate Clinton with Trump? Do you just think traffic will be better with people kvetching about a Clinton presidency as opposed to a Trump presidency? Do you really not understand what is at stake here?
And spare us your juvenile declarations that your vote is not for sale, that you vote your conscience etc etc etc. This isn’t 10th Grade or the student commons; this election is for keeps.
“Is Legal Insurrection really as stupid as Ragspierre to equate Clinton with Trump?”
Except I’ve never done that. Not ever.
I’ve stated my position often enough that I won’t bore (or irritate) anyone with it again.
But to say what you did is simply false. If you have to make false statements in you comment, you lose your creds.
Plus, we’ve heard all the bullying bullshit before. It’s stupid and insulting to just keep repeating it. It won’t change a thing.
You have equated Trump and Clinton as collectivists, equating support for one as bad as support for the other. You do this in nearly every thread.
Ouch, that is going to leave a mark.
Rags you want some lotion for that burn ? LOL
The biggest liar is the one who lies to himself.
I’ve IDENTIFIED them as Collectivists. They are. That is not putting them as equivalent. You’re a dope. As we now know.
They are both dangerous people who are ANTI-conservative, ANTI-constitutional, and openly against the republic.
But they are those things each in different ways. Not “equivalent” by any analysis I’ve ever made.
My only analysis is that I won’t vote for a Collectivist.
On the matter of the alt-right and it’s history here, I think (and props to her) I first came across it in a post by Amy In Florida.
That would have been about a year ago.
Donald Trump should run a 30 second ad of the picture of Hillary Clinton kissing Robert Byrd. No sound, no nothing else (maybe next to the pic of Byrd in his KKK getup).
Bill Clinton didn’t run for governor in the 1970s without dealing with these people for an endorsement and his campaign bumper stickers in 1992 had confederate battle flags. She’s vulnerable.
Agreed. I can think of a dozen ads Trump should run to counter Hillary’s ridiculous and moronic ad.
Amazing how people can just toss this sort of thing out there when it suits an older white male. Trump has so many ways to counter this. He can discuss the Democratic racist, KKK legacy and Clinton’s support given to KKK, Byrd, etc…
Grandma isn’t racist, she loves the likes of Oprah, Whoopi, Denzel, Sharpton. I’m sure that the she’s kickin with the homies in Compton every chance that she gets. Her projected reality is that of Latin America and the 3rd world in general, love them from afar, behind locked gates. And, all of this Flipper level screeching from blacks is to cover their racism. It is all that they think about and is pretty much the only topic among their intelligentsia. Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates? Please.
What the left wingers and #NeverTrumpers that just plain copy the far left these days in both their arguments and philosophy when it comes to attacking Trump forget regarding racism and the alt-right:
1. Trump is not a racist, and never has been.
2. Of the 62 Million people that are going to vote for Trump and give him the presidency, a mere handful are official members of Fuzzy’s so called alt-right club.
3. All the rest of Trump’s millions of supporters are people who are generally conservative, support Trump’s conservative agenda, but like Trump are supporters of making adjustments to the conservative purist agenda on fair trade and don’t support the GOPe and conservative purists globalist mega donor agenda that has helped destroy the middle class since Reagan. Conservative purists join the GOPe and the democrats in wanting middle class crushing huge increases in legal immigration, h1b visas, and lax border security.
Hillary, Kimberlee, Rags, Fuzzy, and the rest of the NeverTrumpers try to say that if some moron in his mother’s basement declares he is the founder of the alt-right club and then later declares his support for Trump that this makes Trump and the 62 million people who will make him president on November 8 all alt-right club members, bigots and racists.
It is moronic, illogical, and factless reasoning. It is wrong. It is despotic. It is infantile, and it is typical of the left and their NeverTrump helpers. Plain and simple.
Best thing however is that Trump has already shown he won’t lay down and take it the way McCain, Romney and all the other LOSERS the NeverTrumpers were proud to vote for did. He fought back and is fighting back hard.
Trump gave a great speech today with Senator Joni Ernst today in Iowa. He brought Joni Ernst to tears of joy, and they shared a nice embrace upon the close of his speech.
Trump has gotten excellent at blending in the use of the teleprompter with his extemporaneous natural style, and he did an excellent job contrasting his positions with Hillary Clinton’s in a detailed and persuasive manner.
Trump also did an excellent job hitting and reinforcing his themes on immigration today, and what he had to say in his speech today on immigration will no doubt be the basis of his upcoming immigration policy speech.
Trump has had consistent closing in both the national and state polls and next week or so even the rigged polls like Reuters/Ipsos will be showing Trump in the lead.
istandinlines said…
“It is moronic, illogical, and factless reasoning.”
Well, yes. It’s also a lie. Something you made up.
There is no T-rumpian “conservative agenda”. His agenda on trade, borrowing and spending is indistinguishable from Bernie Sander’s and the AFL-CIO. He’s EXPRESSLY laid out all this, if you need instruction.
When you use terms like “conservative purist agenda” you are self-identifying as being ANTI-liberty. Thanks, I’ll be a “purist” with regard to how I use my property, with whom I trade, and how. And I’ll fight Der Donald and his NOT-conservatives for those rights.
Additionally, I’ll continue to militate for a rational immigration policy that does not have millions of “wonderful people” flooding our nation, regardless of how long they have been here illegally.
I’ll ALSO continue to sound the alarm that we CANNOT continue spending on entitlement per the status quo. Mr. Establish has promised to “fully fund” them. That is a lie told to dupes. There isn’t enough money in the world. Literally.
Dupe.
Regarding Trump’s Speech Today In Iowa:
Want to know Trump. Watch this speech !!!
“Wow! Donald Trump’s speech in Iowa today was amazing. He went after Hillary Clinton, offered hope to minorities and welcomed them into the Republican fold, explained his plans to make America safer and more prosperous and more.
He hit every note and it was HIGH ENERGY!
Watch the video at link, skip to the 1 hour and 23 minute mark for Trump:”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-trump-fire-iowa-speech-era-clintons-video/
Want to know T-rump?
DEAL with what he DID in Iowa during the caucuses.
He…for a few lousy votes from BIG CORN cronies…came out in FAVOR of the anti-market, anti-science ethanol mandates. He ADVOCATED both EXTENDING them and EXPANDING them.
THEN he lied about why. He said they would “make America great again”.
As if…
I’m looking forward to his presidency. He’s gonna be great and make America the same way.
I submit for your consideration the following video:
Lynne Patton “The Trump Family That I Know” – A Black Female Trump Executive Speaks in support of her boss!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY&feature=youtu.be
Reading this one thread makes it very clear the nevertrump crowd is simply forHillary.
There is zero difference.