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.

 nels1031 wrote:


White House transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-roundtable-discussion-tax-reform/

Trying to read that transcript was like trying to read Youtube comments.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust any 'official' transcript coming from the White House as long as the dumpster fire is in charge.

 d-usa wrote:

“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”

This is just the latest in years worth of statements on illegal immigrants. We don’t need a spin to know what he thinks and says.

He was responding to a question from a sheriff regarding MS-13, not riffing on illegal immigrants in general...

These outlets are lying. Full stop.

If you can't admit the media's dishonesty on this... then how can we-the-people can ever have hope of holding our political class to account when you take them at face value?

Trump is a lying scumbag... the media should be better than Trump.

It's not like there's any legit shortage of things to criticize Trump over...

Even CNN's Jake Tapper is obliquely calling out his colleagues today for this...

Jake Tapper (@jaketapper)
5/17/18, 7:09 AM
Here is the full context of President Trump’s “animals” comment during the immigration/sanctuary city roundtable, which came as a Sheriff was complaining about restrictions placed on ICE databases, and MS-13 gang members. pic.twitter.com/sI9uWXr1Sc

 skyth wrote:
Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust any 'official' transcript coming from the White House as long as the dumpster fire is in charge.

Then trust the video, my man?

 nels1031 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
His staff was discussing deporting criminal immigrants, which is an awfully broad category. Not all criminals are violent, yet Trump starts ranting about animals. Did you hear what he said, he never used the word violent once in his response.

I see where the confusion is. The article that you linked and seem to be getting your info from has the conversation jumbled. The conversation with Sheriff Mims happens before the rant in question, at the mention of MS-13, a violent organization by most sensible standards , Trump sounds off with the rant, as he is want to do. MS-13 is his immigration boogeyman. Seems clear that he's only referring to the violent offenders.
There is video and the Whitehouse.gov transcript that show it in the correct sequence.

Video at this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-hosts-california-sanctuary-state-roundtable-live-updates/

White House transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-roundtable-discussion-tax-reform/

For what its worth, the transcript is interesting reading on its own.

I guess its the yanny/laurel thing. Different people hearing different things

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He considers most Mexicans to be animals by his own standard considering what he said about Mexicans in the past. He just piles them all on the gang/drug cartel groups without facts.

I get that, but at this point do we need to omit wording or parse statements to cement your belief? Who doesn't/does think he's racist at this point that will be swayed by these new comments? There are no fence sitters at this point, imo. Its already baked into the cake.

It was a gak post, plain and simple. Sebsters, not yours, btw.

Did you miss me saying I saw the video, as in did you hear what he said? I did, so no, I'm not confused. Did you hear her full 2 min question? The question was about criminal immigrants, not just MS-13 and he starts ranting like they all are.

I'll concede that you watched the video.

I guess I'm just baffled that you're using an article that that the title even says that he called "some" illegal immigrants animals as your proof that he called "all" illegal immigrants animals. Make that makes sense for me.

edit: I'll leave it at that my man. Clearly daylight between us on this issue. You got your opinion, and I got mine. Expect no other response on this issue.

When he says most Mexicans are rapists, I give him saying some immigrants are animals very little value, as he never says some. One directly contradicts the other, with the former speaking a lot more clearly about his actual beliefs when combined with what he said at other times.

By putting 2 and 2 together, he is saying most Mexicans are animals, not that some immigrants are for example.

Then there is his talk about “breeding”, he knows what he’s doing.

 d-usa wrote:
Then there is his talk about “breeding”, he knows what he’s doing.

The man with five children distributed over three women (two of which are immigrants) talking about "breeding" is hilarious.

This was a really interesting conversation about the coalition Trump put together to win the election.

https://the1a.org/shows/2018-05-16/the-great-revolt-in-the-voting-booth

 nels1031 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Donald Trump decided to make it clear just in case anyone wasn't quite sure that he is a straight up bigot. Today in a roundtable on immigration he stated “These aren’t people. These are animals.”.

To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.

Incredibly dishonest to frame that comment as him referring to immigration in general. The fact that you don’t even bother to post the quote, or a video link that focuses on this brief exchange, despite clearly showing the willingness and ability (as I type this, on this very page even) to post links to support your claims on other subjects, makes me think its deliberate dishonesty. Its like you were afraid to reveal the context, or you only read the Huffpo headlines and take that for gospel.

My question is why? Is there anyone on this board that dislikes Trump based on policy alone but doesn’t believe he’s also bigot that will somehow be swayed to believe otherwise by your paraphrasing? Do you think there is an ardent Trump supporter who will read your doctored quote, have a Grinch that Stole Christmas moment and do some soul searching?

There’s plenty of gak that you can throw at 45. So much so that you don’t need to make gak up. He’s the living breathing font of that gak. In fact, making gak up just makes the real gak less impactful at this point.

Do better, dude.

Wait a second, while I agree that Seb can get a bit left-biased at times he isn't saying Trump was commenting on all immigration; you're putting words in his mouth. All Seb was saying is 'here is further proof that Trump is bigoted, it happened during a meeting on immigration' which that statement certainly does regardless of the number of immigrants he is referring to. If anything you are the one twisting the circumstance to push a viewpoint here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, those are people too. Nothing good has ever come of claiming the right to define who is human and who isn't.

I didn't mean it that seriously.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IMO the only animals put there are the ones who engage in sexual assault--putting base instinct over concious thought or morality.

I see what you did there

He gets it

 nels1031 wrote:
edit: I'll leave it at that my man. Clearly daylight between us on this issue. You got your opinion, and I got mine. Expect no other response on this issue.

It's a moot point anyway, in my opinion.

He's shown repeatedly that either he genuinely has a streak of the ol' racism, or is using racist dogwhistles to appeal to his supporters, which isn't actually better. His track record speaks to the former, as well as the latter. We can all agree to this, right? This isn't in dispute? That he has a long streak of throwing stuff like this out there?

So, with that in mind, did he actually call immigrants "animals" this time? Doesn't matter. Not at all. This isn't going to be the thing that blows it all open whether he did or didn't. It literally doesn't move the needle at all. We know what the puzzle looks like, we've got a ton of pieces in there, it doesn't matter if this exact one fits in that spot or not.

The whole thing is totally irrelevant.

Net Nuetrality is llike Lancelot's loyal man-servant from Monty Python..... not quite dead yet.....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/net-neutrality-vote-senate-passes-today-2018-05-16/

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass Democratic legislation to repeal the FCC's dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52 yeas to 47 nays. The resolution being offered by Democrats passed with the support of all 49 members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans -- Sens. Collins, R-Maine, John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "This is our chance -- our best chance -- to make sure the internet stays accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Under the original net neutrality rule, internet service providers were also banned from providing faster internet access and preferred services to companies for extra fees -- so called "fast lanes." The FCC voted in December 2017 to undo the net neutrality rules.

Don't expect the House to go along with the Senate on this. Opponents such as Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said the Senate's vote later Wednesday on a measure reversing the Federal Communications Commission's decision that scrapped the "net neutrality" rule amounted to "political theater" with no prospects of approval by the GOP-controlled House.

Net neutrality prevented providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from interfering with internet traffic and favoring their own sites and apps.

nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.

To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).

Do better, dude.

You too.

 Easy E wrote:
Net Nuetrality is llike Lancelot's loyal man-servant from Monty Python..... not quite dead yet.....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/net-neutrality-vote-senate-passes-today-2018-05-16/

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass Democratic legislation to repeal the FCC's dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52 yeas to 47 nays. The resolution being offered by Democrats passed with the support of all 49 members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans -- Sens. Collins, R-Maine, John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said, "This is our chance -- our best chance -- to make sure the internet stays accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Under the original net neutrality rule, internet service providers were also banned from providing faster internet access and preferred services to companies for extra fees -- so called "fast lanes." The FCC voted in December 2017 to undo the net neutrality rules.

Don't expect the House to go along with the Senate on this. Opponents such as Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, said the Senate's vote later Wednesday on a measure reversing the Federal Communications Commission's decision that scrapped the "net neutrality" rule amounted to "political theater" with no prospects of approval by the GOP-controlled House.

Net neutrality prevented providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from interfering with internet traffic and favoring their own sites and apps.

One would have thought that with a predicted savaging in the mid terms and the Democrats looking to make NN *their* issue, that the House may want to try and get on board a clearly popular platform and undercut the Democrats, but no, theyre gonna do the thing anyway...

Trump enters the classic "ridiculous ultimatum" stage of international deal making. He's really painting himself into a corner with his legendary deal-making skills.

MAGA in full effect, you guys. Including pointless, wee lil peen waving nuclear brinkmanship.

 feeder wrote:
Trump enters the classic "ridiculous ultimatum" stage of international deal making. He's really painting himself into a corner with his legendary deal-making skills.

MAGA in full effect, you guys. Including pointless, wee lil peen waving nuclear brinkmanship.

It *really* doesn't help that Gaddafi actually came clean about his weapons programs and openly dismantled them before he suffered said fate.

EDIT: A fact that the North Koreans have absolutely not missed

High-ranking officials of the White House and the Department of State including John Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of a so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment: "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation", "total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons" etc, while talking about a formula of "abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards".

This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue.

It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.

I cannot suppress indignation at such moves of the US, and harbour doubt about the US sincerity for improved DPRK-US relations through sound dialogue and negotiations.

TL;DR You know, we do hear all those crazy things you say for the sake of your political base, we take them seriously, we remember what happened to Libya and Gaddafi when they played ball, and we're calling BS.

Whoa nelly!

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).

Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...

 whembly wrote:
Whoa nelly!

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).

Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...

I'm no legal expert on the vagueries of that level of administrative law, but the article appears to have addressed that point.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”

Mario wrote:

nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.

To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).

Do better, dude.

You too.

To be clear, it DOES matter. MS 13 is one of the most violent organizations in existence, on par with ISIL.

Educate yourself on the Americas before you comment on the Americas.

 Frazzled wrote:

Mario wrote:

nels1031 wrote:To be clear, that comment came in reference to illegal immigrants, in particular violent illegal immigrants and members of transnational criminal organizations, with MS-13 getting a special mention in that exchange. And it wasn’t an immigration roundtable, it was a rally the troops criclejerk focused on sanctuary city laws.

To be clear, it doesn't matter: Illegal or not. Dehumanising people is kinda fascist-adjacent. And it doesn't help that Trump mentioned his superior genes a few times and he, apparently, believes this bs. Or when somebody from his gang talks about camps for certain groups of people (muslims), or attacks on LGBT rights, reducing healthcare and social safety nets for disabled people and the elderly, and so on. Them drifting near those topics makes me uncomfortable (for historic reasons).

Do better, dude.

You too.

To be clear, it DOES matter. MS 13 is one of the most violent organizations in existence, on par with ISIL.

Educate yourself on the Americas before you comment on the Americas.

That really doesn't matter. People can try to dress it up as much as they want, people know what the Cheeto is getting at when he talks about groups and ethnicities. It's this nonsense where people try to 'clarify' after the fact that we get into this endless cycle of someone trying to pretend they have the credentials to talk about a specialized topic like criminal organizations or do a "Well actually..." on someone else.

Except of course the conversation was about MS 13. Enough gak another to talk Trump on without making up gak.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the conversation was about MS 13. Enough gak another to talk Trump on without making up gak.

So are we just going to pretend that we don't know his conversations from elsewhere? That he hasn't made his stances super clear?

No. There's no free pass on this crap.

 nels1031 wrote:
Incredibly dishonest to frame that comment as him referring to immigration in general. The fact that you don’t even bother to post the quote, or a video link that focuses on this brief exchange, despite clearly showing the willingness and ability (as I type this, on this very page even) to post links to support your claims on other subjects, makes me think its deliberate dishonesty. Its like you were afraid to reveal the context, or you only read the Huffpo headlines and take that for gospel.

It was at a roundtable on immigration, exactly like I said. If I'd gone with your suggestion and said Trump was referring to illegal immigrants that would have been misleading, because it isn't clear who Trump was referring to - he was answering a query about MS-13 and his response was fairly unclear, it may have only been about MS-13, it may have been about all deportees, or possibly all illegal aliens.

And ultimately the exact subject of that exact sentence doesn't really matter, unless someone wants to claim Trump is a detailed focused man who always makes sure he is saying specific things about very specifically defined subjects. Trump works in broad, fuzzy concepts, and one of the most common is Trump's willing to use sweeping, negative generalizations whenever the subject touches on immigration. It isn't hard to recognize a basic difference between 'these are animals' and 'some of them are very fine people' and know why they were applied in each case.

My question is why?

Because I've gotten quite a few comments for the size of my posts. This was one of three separate issues I was raising in that post and I believed it was the least important of the three, so I tried to summarize it as briefly as possible. I could have either gone in to a full breakdown of Trump's quote, and spammed the board with so much text that people would have stopped reading before they got to the really important stuff about disappearing SARs files, or I could have given a misleading summary like your suggestion, or I could do what I did and give a very quick overview that didn't give any detail on the vague comment. The last of the three was the best option, by far.

Do better, dude.

This is the internet. Someone's gonna whinge about something. But thanks for your contribution.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Whoa nelly!

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

Lawd... this is actual admissions within this NYT report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of el Cheeto Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Yes, I said "illegal spying"... as it's apparent that the FBI used their counterintelligent apparatus... in lieu of opening up a criminal investigation (2 completely different operations).

Seems to me, the leakers are trying to set the narrative ahead of the big OIG report...

I'm no legal expert on the vagueries of that level of administrative law, but the article appears to have addressed that point.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”

The article is clearly spin in attempt to give plausible cover for those DOJ/FBI officials in previous administration for actively monitoring a political campaign of the opposition party at the time.

The FBI, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any:
1) incriminating evidence, or
2) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage.

Whereas if they had actual evidence, they'd open up a real criminal investigation.

Despite your dislike of Trump... put yourself back in '16 just before the election... for the FBI to do that... it's harrowing. I mean, its one thing if they can produce incontroversial evidence to justify it... but, so far, it's been wanting.

The IG is about to release a massive report on all of this, and this article (with leaks from DOJ/FBI folks!) smacks of some serious spin.

I'm mean, in this article it basically said that the FBI had an informant. FLAT. OUT.

 whembly wrote:
No... he didn't call immigrants "animals"... he was talking about MS-13.

You fell for it man... hook, link, sinker...

I know exactly what he fething said, and it isn't clear exactly who Trump was referring to, because it's generally not very clear who or what Donald is talking about because the guy is fuzzy brained idiot.

Which actually works for him, because it allows people like yourself to interpret his comments to suit yourself. Which in turn leads to a stupid debate parsing Trump's exact comment, which means we're not debating things that actually matter. Thing like SARs reports on Cohen disappearing from a federal database, or Trump's financial disclosures being referred by the OGE to the FBI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Then there is his talk about “breeding”, he knows what he’s doing.

I actually don't think the usual dogwhistle strategy fits what Trump is doing. Dog whistling is a cynical strategy to use certain phrasings that racists will hear but which slip by the rest of the public, or at least provide deniability.

Trump isn't trying to sneak anything in. There's no planning here. He simply is a racist. The irony is that it's worked nicely for him, because after decades of dog whistling, people saw the guy straight up saying racist stuff and saw it as refreshingly honest.

In a sense it kind of was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wait a second, while I agree that Seb can get a bit left-biased at times...

Last night in the real world I got called a neo-liberal and 'an accountant just so fething obsessed with money' when I questioned a few things claimed by a friend of a friend. So you know, what I see as a set of pretty straight forward, pragmatic principles based on a pretty clear eyed point of view ends up being seen as left biased by some people, and right biased by other people, because that's just how it works.

he isn't saying Trump was commenting on all immigration; you're putting words in his mouth. All Seb was saying is 'here is further proof that Trump is bigoted, it happened during a meeting on immigration' which that statement certainly does regardless of the number of immigrants he is referring to. If anything you are the one twisting the circumstance to push a viewpoint here.

Thankyou. Seriously, I just wanted to give a single sentence summary of the event, and honestly you could write a book trying to interpret the exact subject matter of Trump's little rant. So I just gave the particular quote, and the event in which it took place.

And honestly the exact subject just doesn't matter. Unless whembly or nels1031 or someone else wants to argue that Trump uses language like animals as freely when discussing groups of white people, it's pretty fething clear what just happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Whoa nelly!

Oh look. So when I told you that the FBI started their investigation because of Downer's evidence, and you claimed that it was because of the Steele dossier, then I was completely right and you were completely wrong. You need to start admitting how wildly you have been misled by Nunes and the rest of the liars.

As to your other accusation - it's trash and you should feel ridiculous for ever suggesting it. FBI counterintelligence was used in response to foreign agents working in a major political campaign, and the same foreign powers operating propaganda efforts to influence the election in favour of that candidate. There is nothing contraversial about investigating that, and it's plainly absurd you're trying to claim otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The article is clearly spin in attempt to give plausible cover for those DOJ/FBI officials in previous administration for actively monitoring a political campaign of the opposition party at the time.

The FBI, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any:
1) incriminating evidence, or
2) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage.

They had a report from a trusted ally that a Trump campaign staff member was bragging about Russian support for the Trump campaign. But you claim there was no evidence.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the conversation was about MS 13. Enough gak another to talk Trump on without making up gak.

So are we just going to pretend that we don't know his conversations from elsewhere? That he hasn't made his stances super clear?

No. There's no free pass on this crap.

As soon as you can find one, post it.

That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the conversation was about MS 13. Enough gak another to talk Trump on without making up gak.

So are we just going to pretend that we don't know his conversations from elsewhere? That he hasn't made his stances super clear?

No. There's no free pass on this crap.

As soon as you can find one, post it.

That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.

Frazzled, there was just an article about that on the Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/can-rhetoric-on-the-left-fuel-bigotry-on-the-right/560285/

With a rebuttal on Slate:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/liberals-are-plenty-nice.html

This is the part that I think needs focusing on:

Political commentators generally take very little interest in thinking through the implications and consequences of arrogance and condescension on the right. How often are Republicans told by centrist surveyors of the cultural scene that they might benefit politically from reaching out to enthusiastically pro-choice young women, that the fire-and-brimstone approach of calling supporters of Planned Parenthood pro-infanticide and symbols of the fall of man might be counterproductive? How much respect for ideological opponents is evinced whenever conservative pundits call the activists of Black Lives Matter thugs and black Democrats dupes? Is the average liberal or leftist in America today more clueless or judgmental about lifestyles different from their own than Republicans who spent years warning that gay marriage and the decriminalization of homosexuality would justify and enable bestiality? Is the average left activist on campus more hostile to dissenting opinions than Ben Shapiro was when he argued that Iraq war critics should be prosecuted for sedition?

EDIT: Heck, how many times have Conservatives painted a broad brush on people? Are we going to argue that calling liberals snowflakes caused Obama to win in 2008?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course the conversation was about MS 13. Enough gak another to talk Trump on without making up gak.

So are we just going to pretend that we don't know his conversations from elsewhere? That he hasn't made his stances super clear?

No. There's no free pass on this crap.

As soon as you can find one, post it.

That's why Trump won. The left calls literally everyone less left than them racist. It's just a given at this point.

How soon we forget that he had to be sued to rent to black people.

Or that he claimed Judge Curiel couldn't give him a fair trial for his con-job of a university "because, we believe, he is Mexican".

Or any of the other priceless moments that come up whenever we have the "you can't prove he's racist, you name-calling liberals!" conversation.

If you say so. Please identify a Republican that hasn't been called a racist.