Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now ya'll being silly.... I mean really.

But, whateve.

STOP. DEFLECTING.

Admit that you're trying to defend someone who's got almost no relevant credentials to be secretary of education.

Nope.

Why? People can do their job while holding weird beliefs.

You argued that Ben Carson was qualified to be secretary of education because he's studied neurosurgery. How does that make him competent to know how teaching works? He's brilliant in a field that has nothing to do with teaching others.

Hey... in 2016 Donald fething Trump is now the President...

Ben Carson as Secretary of Education is the least of our worries. And to your question, education has always been one of his passions and combined that with his working experience... I'm sure he'd be fine.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.

Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.

All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.

Ugh, the point that seems to keep flying over people's heads at speeds to put the Blackbird to shame, is not that everyone who voted for Trump is racist, but that everyone who voted for Trump were willing to accept, or at least look past, his racism because of some other issue(s) they cared about even more.

The worry is how that may encourage other politicians to act.

 whembly wrote:
This does bother me... but, I'm not sure there's anything we can do to force Trump to mitigate conflicts of interests.

That's simply because the nature of his business and how his kids are likely going to run his companies.

Oh, you mean in that "blind trust" he's going to set up?

One thing that we haven't discussed...

Trump has very VISIBLE holdings all over the world... they're extremely soft targets for bad guys to disrupt.

Well, he has business in unfriendly countries that is often tied to unfriendly governments. If he refuses to give them up or sell them, what's to stop those governments from using those ties to get extra attention or favorable deals, like in a... what do you call it? Oh yeah, "pay-for-play."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Oh, you mean in that "blind trust" he's going to set up?

having you kids run the business is the opposite of a blind trust. It's collusion.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now ya'll being silly.... I mean really.

But, whateve.

STOP. DEFLECTING.

Admit that you're trying to defend someone who's got almost no relevant credentials to be secretary of education.

Nope.

Why? People can do their job while holding weird beliefs.

You argued that Ben Carson was qualified to be secretary of education because he's studied neurosurgery. How does that make him competent to know how teaching works? He's brilliant in a field that has nothing to do with teaching others.

Hey... in 2016 Donald fething Trump is now the President...

Ben Carson as Secretary of Education is the least of our worries. And to your question, education has always been one of his passions and combined that with his working experience... I'm sure he'd be fine.

Dr. Ben Carson is a 7th Day Adventist and, hence, a literal six-day-creationist.

BC being SoE is the "least" of our worries until he starts advocating his other "passion" with the teaching of creationism as part of the curriculum in schools. Then it's a melon-fething huge problem.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.

Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.

All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.

Ugh, the point that seems to keep flying over people's heads at speeds to put the Blackbird to shame, is not that everyone who voted for Trump is racist, but that everyone who voted for Trump were willing to accept, or at least look past, his racism because of some other issue(s) they cared about even more.

The worry is how that may encourage other politicians to act.

Everyone can agree that Trump's argumentative style fits the Braggadocio™ definition to the 'T'.

So the things he said, he should be held to account.

But, Clinton? Man... she (and other Democrats) get a pass for their pass racial statements/belief:
She praised Margaret Sanger, who believed in the use of eugenics to limit minority populations, including African-Americans and those with disabilities.

Clinton once referred to African-American youth as "superpredators" and "We have to bring them to heel".

Not to mention, her very own foundation received money from GOVERNMENTS with horrible records.

Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I agree with your that being anti-illegal immigration is not in and of itself racist. However, even being anti-legal-immigration can spill over into racism, as shown by fallout from the Brexit vote, so clearly there are passions that are stirred up by this general area of life.

Whether Trump's remarks arose from ignorance or not, he made them, and they helped garner the support of racist groups like the KKK.

All of which is zero grounds for assuming that everyone who voted for Trump due to his immigration stance is racist. It's disturbing that we can't seem to agree on that.

Ugh, the point that seems to keep flying over people's heads at speeds to put the Blackbird to shame, is not that everyone who voted for Trump is racist, but that everyone who voted for Trump were willing to accept, or at least look past, his racism because of some other issue(s) they cared about even more.

The worry is how that may encourage other politicians to act.

Everyone can agree that Trump's argumentative style fits the Braggadocio™ definition to the 'T'.

So the things he said, he should be held to account.

But, Clinton? Man... she (and other Democrats) get a pass for their pass racial statements/belief:
She praised Margaret Sanger, who believed in the use of eugenics to limit minority populations, including African-Americans and those with disabilities.

Clinton once referred to African-American youth as "superpredators" and "We have to bring them to heel".

Not to mention, her very own foundation received money from GOVERNMENTS with horrible records.

Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

Ignore all the racist stuff trump has said and done his entire life, he didn't mean it.

A charity accepted donations from a country trump wants to let have nukes.

see how evil she is, and if we ignore everything trump has ever said and done, he's a saint.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This does bother me... but, I'm not sure there's anything we can do to force Trump to mitigate conflicts of interests.

That's simply because the nature of his business and how his kids are likely going to run his companies.

Oh, you mean in that "blind trust" he's going to set up?

Blind Trust ain't going to do jack gak in this case.

...and yes, that's a problem

One thing that we haven't discussed...

Trump has very VISIBLE holdings all over the world... they're extremely soft targets for bad guys to disrupt.

Well, he has business in unfriendly countries that is often tied to unfriendly governments. If he refuses to give them up or sell them, what's to stop those governments from using those ties to get extra attention or favorable deals, like in a... what do you call it? Oh yeah, "pay-for-play."

Again... that's a problem.

Good thing the media as a whole are now interested in adversarial journalisms again. (which isn't a good look for them, but I digress).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

BC being SoE is the "least" of our worries until he starts advocating his other "passion" with the teaching of creationism as part of the curriculum in schools. Then it's a melon-fething huge problem.

He simply cannot do that as SoE. Even if he tried, the Ed Dept. bureaucracy won't let him.

Additionally, there's a legal doctrine that everyone knows... "separation of church and state".

What's dishartening here is that people have a problem when a devote religious person are in position of power. It's like, you don't believe people in position NOW (nor in the past) could ever have been religiously devout.

 whembly wrote:


What's dishartening here is that people have a problem when a devote religious person are in position of power. It's like, you don't believe people in position NOW (nor in the past) could ever have been religiously devout.

When the person in question has a history of trying to push creationism in education there isn't going to be any trust. The person has already tried to break down the separation of church and state.

sirlynchmob wrote:


[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

Enough. You're not doing anyone any favours by generalizing like that.

It's becoming obvious to me how of this election came to identity politics. In this thread I guess I kind of got used to not seeing it, but it's amazing how much my facebook has been taken over by left and right posters who don't really have anything to say on policy, but are really just driven by how much they hate the fantasy versions of the other side they have in their head. People I've known for a long time, who are mostly nice, happy people are posting long, hateful screeds about how this election is about ignorant racists or about the comeuppance for SJWs or whatever. Less common but still in large numbers are posts from people talking about what the election means to them as a christian, or as a woman, or a minority of whatever.

What's missing through every single one of these is any discussion at all of policy. It's as if the whole election is about taking up an identity, with no regard to what elected officials actually do in office.

And once you see this, it isn't just happening among amateurs prattling away on the internet. Listen to the commentators on tv, or read the opinion pieces in the papers. You will see plenty written about what Trump's win means in terms of this weird, vague notion of a big culture war. You'll see bugger all on what policy changes are coming and how they will effect people and the country.

 whembly wrote:
What's dishartening here is that people have a problem when a devote religious person are in position of power. It's like, you don't believe people in position NOW (nor in the past) could ever have been religiously devout.

You're conflating devote religious belief with disbelief of science. These are not the same thing. The argument you are taking up does a disservice to religious belief, by pretending no religious belief can be both strong and respectful of/informed by scientfic discovery. This is obviously not true and something that a lot of religious people I know would find quite offensive.

The issue is not that Ben Carson has strong religious beliefs, but that his particular brand of religious belief have led him to a point where he denied base science and history. This should be a pretty fething obvious problem to everyone for a person put to any government post, doubly so for education.

I'm still trying to work out what Trump's attitudes to trade deals and foreign policy are beyound "bomb the gak out of ISIS". Will he be keen for a deal with the UK or is that 'delusional' like one German politicain claims?

sirlynchmob wrote:
having you kids run the business is the opposite of a blind trust.

Yes, which is why I put it in scare quotes.

For me, the discussion about Trump is over atm. He's the president elect.
The Europeans are a bit worried about what will happen when he's installed. But that's two months ahead.

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
having you kids run the business is the opposite of a blind trust.

Yes, which is why I put it in scare quotes.

Yeah... anyone who thinks Trump holdings won't benefit from President Cheeto Jesus is naive to the extreme.

How can this be mitigated?

News Media and periodic Congressional Hearings??

He's not going to simply give up his life work ya know.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

Yes.

People who voted for him have, by doing so, said that it is acceptable to have a racist in the White House. If they found it unacceptable, they would not have voted for him.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

pas·sive
ˈpasiv/Submit
adjective
1.
accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance.

ac·cept·ance
əkˈseptəns/
noun
1.
the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

Yes.

People who voted for him have, by doing so, said that it is acceptable to have a racist in the White House. If they found it unacceptable, they would not have voted for him.

Okay... you keep on Trumpsplaining the Trump voters.

At least I voted for the stoner.

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

Yes.

People who voted for him have, by doing so, said that it is acceptable to have a racist in the White House. If they found it unacceptable, they would not have voted for him.

Okay... you keep on Trumpsplaining the Trump voters.

I'm not sure what you even mean by that.

It seemed like you were arguing against a pretty self-evident fact.

Its the backfire effect that some posters on this board seem to have

Um... this is becoming more than a trial ballon:
Graham wants Trump to nominate Cruz to Supreme Court

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recommended on Friday that President-elect Trump nominate fellow former GOP presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

"I'm here to tell my Democratic colleagues that I voted for Obama's nominees. I expect them to give Trump's nominees a fair shake. He won this election. He will pick a conservative. I would put Ted Cruz on that list," Graham told WYFF-TV on Friday, while at a Veterans Day ceremony at Greenville Memorial Hospital.

Graham added that Trump should scope out the Senate before looking at his own list of 20 potential judges.

"There are some really strong people in there. And there is no stronger constitutional conservative than Ted Cruz," said Graham.

Since the GOP-led Senate has refused to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, the incoming Republican president will have first pick in January. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg proposed on Friday that a Cruz nomination could win bipartisan support because Democrats want to get the outspoken constitutional conservative out of their chamber, though it would leave the highest court with five conservative judges and four liberals.

Trump has said he may consider nominating Cruz's Tea Party ally, Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who said he was not interested in the position. Goldberg said the same may be the case for Cruz, adding, "I don't think Cruz" wants the lifetime post.

They're trying to kick the Zodiac Killer out of the Senate by any means possible.

However, I'd prefer Sen Mike Lee gets that position.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Except we didn't curbstomp Trump, now did we? We are going to see more of it, it only remains to be seen how America will deal with it.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

You're still confusing "acceptance" with "approval".

 Spinner wrote:

I'm not sure what you even mean by that.

It seemed like you were arguing against a pretty self-evident fact.

I mean the statement that Trump voters are saying (in however fashion) that it's okay to put a racist in the Whitehouse is a silly argument. (while you ignore Clinton's racial past).

The people were given two absolute gak choices... flip a god damn coin yo.

I'm willing to bet there is no way Cruz would want to be on the Supreme Court. I don't think that's his style.


Also... *shudder*

 whembly wrote:
Um... this is becoming more than a trial ballon:
Graham wants Trump to nominate Cruz to Supreme Court

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recommended on Friday that President-elect Trump nominate fellow former GOP presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

"I'm here to tell my Democratic colleagues that I voted for Obama's nominees. I expect them to give Trump's nominees a fair shake. He won this election. He will pick a conservative. I would put Ted Cruz on that list," Graham told WYFF-TV on Friday, while at a Veterans Day ceremony at Greenville Memorial Hospital.

Graham added that Trump should scope out the Senate before looking at his own list of 20 potential judges.

"There are some really strong people in there. And there is no stronger constitutional conservative than Ted Cruz," said Graham.

Since the GOP-led Senate has refused to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, the incoming Republican president will have first pick in January. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg proposed on Friday that a Cruz nomination could win bipartisan support because Democrats want to get the outspoken constitutional conservative out of their chamber, though it would leave the highest court with five conservative judges and four liberals.

Trump has said he may consider nominating Cruz's Tea Party ally, Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who said he was not interested in the position. Goldberg said the same may be the case for Cruz, adding, "I don't think Cruz" wants the lifetime post.

They're trying to kick the Zodiac Killer out of the Senate by any means possible.

However, I'd prefer Sen Mike Lee gets that position.

I would prefer a moderate. But then, I've got this crazy idea that judges should be impartial and should not even belong to a political party. I know, naive, right?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm willing to be there is no way Cruz would want to be on the Supreme Court. I don't think that's his style.

As long as he thinks he can be president (you know that's his ultimate goal) I don't think he'd want it.

Also... *shudder*

I'd be tickled pink if he took Scalia's seat.

Is Crux even an experienced judge? Is the qualification for the highest seat of jurisprudence in the land the expectation that he will carry out the government's wished?

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you arguing that ALL Clinton voters accept these things as kosher as well? That it's "ok"?

(not really having a go with you tanner)... but, it seems that there's this mental gymnastics going on here that is trying to paint with a wide brush without trying to...

I fething did NOT say "it's ok", and you fething know it, too. Don't ever willfully misrepresent my words like that in such a dishonest way, it's beneath you.

Acceptance of, looking past, trying to ignore, or whatever term you want to use that means the same damn thing, something bad in favor of something that is more important to you is not the same as approval or support of that bad thing. Just don't pretend that the bad thing doesn't exist, or that others won't be encouraged by your choice.

I think you misread me.

The point I was driving at, is that the Trump voters are not saying "racism/sexism/-ism is ok" and the worry is unfounded.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it and curbstomp it if it does manifest.

Passive acceptance of the things he said by voting for him is still acceptance

No.

Yes.

People who voted for him have, by doing so, said that it is acceptable to have a racist in the White House. If they found it unacceptable, they would not have voted for him.

Okay... you keep on Trumpsplaining the Trump voters.

I'm not sure what you even mean by that.

It seemed like you were arguing against a pretty self-evident fact.

At this point you shouldn't be surprised.