Rusfan
Hall of Famer
"All the time he spends tweeting" lol. It takes the average person about 20 seconds to tweet, why do they act like it takes hours?
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
wait im confused, what am i missing... when was the russia scandal proven to be a hoax - all ive seen recently is more evidence of russian collusion
but i digress the gif thing is a total non-issue and is a bit silly that it's blown up - probably just because it's surprising that trump retweeted something that originated from reddit
The Raven
Veteran
It wasn't proven to be a hoax. Inconclusive evidence on both sides of this topic. I wish it would go away.
As for the WWE GIF... I really don't have any real issue with the GIF itself. My concern is that it makes a president who already appears insecure and juvenile look even more insecure and juvenile. Trump is already mocked in his own country, not to mention abroad. This doesn't help things. It only hurts his own credibility.
Is it presidential to share that? Would either Bush have shared it? Would Reagan? Would JFK, or FDR? What about Nixon? I'll wait patiently for an answer.
Like his policies or hate them, President Obama never stooped to such juvenile levels in eight years. Trump was juvenile before he even took office, and it doesn't look like the Oval Office has humbled him. There's something to be said for poised, strong, and composed leadership. Allies respected Obama. Not so, for Trump.
What would the right's response have been if Obama shared a similar GIF, with him clotheslining Fox News? I'll wait very patiently for an answer to that, too.
i dunno that i agree - i'll be clear here, i have throughout been absolutely anti-trump from the outset (as a foreigner looking in) but I have to say that if Obama had done something similar he'd have been praised for being in on the joke
the difference is that trump is a serial offender so what would have been funny in a different climate becomes yet another example of his unsteadiness in this situation
but i do have to say that while that all may be true i dont think the gif or this particular tweet deserved all the negative attention it got given that it was just a meme
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
The Russian thing is a hoax. Comey flat out said "Trump is not under investigation". That's cut and dry. CNN then gets in trouble for running a fake news story about a Trump associate being involved with Russian banks. 3 people got fired for this. John Podesta is big time involved with Russian banks. Just never reported lol. Only reason why the Russia thing is still alive is cuz Dems are just reaching and still cant accept they lost the election which they thought they had in the bag. How can you keep supporting CNN when really they should just admit they're anti-Trump but they wanna keep acting like they just partial. Really sad. And why didn't Obama do anything about Russia when he knew what the hell they were doing. No it just escalated after Trump won and now its so important.
The GIF is just Trump fighting back instead of laying down like a dog. If you keep getting punched in the face with bullcrap by the media I guess you gotta just act presidential. I can show you clips of Obama hammering FOX and especially Sean Hannity so please don't tell me he's Mr. Congenial. I've even got him mocking Trump before Trump declared to run which is why Trump decided to run. So Obama should deserve a thank you.
Twitter wasn't around with all those presidents you mentioned and yes I think they may have went there. Obama didn't need to since the press kissed his ass.
Obama didn't stoop to juvenile levels? Mocking the police. Calling ISIS the JV team. Thinking he was King Cool. And respect? Israel I'm sure respected him greatly when they watched him hand 150 billion dollars and another 400 mil in umarked Swiss francs to the biggest terrorist nation on the planet and then trying to get Netanyahu ousted during their elections. Abe from Japan sure respected him when when Obama was apologizing (yet again) for bombing the shit out of them but yet Abe goes to Pearl Harbor and doesn't apologize at all. Chrissake. USA paying all the NATO bills and trying to hand out more tax dollars from the Paris climate agreement. Hell yeah Europe is gonna love him but respect idk. I'll just leave it at that but I could go on.
And your last question no it wouldn't have been liked for sure but we also wouldn't talk about it for weeks.
And to get back to Russia for a sec. Why would Russia want Trump as president anyway. Tightening the borders. Building the military. Becoming more energy efficient. Yep that's in Russia's best interests. You'd think they'd rather have someone that signed off on 20% of our uranium but ya know. I'd really love to know why Libs think Russia wanted Trump as prez. They never have an answer they just claim it cuz it sounds good and it can be used as an excuse. Hell Assange himself says it didn't come from Russia. I'm patiently waiting.
There is an active investigation into the Russian interference in the election being run by Robert Mueller, and Comey did testify that Russia influenced the election. The only debate at this point is whether or not President Trump himself is being investigated- which likely is something that only the Mueller team knows. WaPo released something about Trump being investigated for obstruction, but Trump's lawyer denied that- so who really knows if that's true or not. The amount of prosecutors being added to Mueller's investigation definitely shouldn't make Trump comfortable though.
Regardless of whether Trump does eventually end up charged or not, we should all care about Russia's interference. Even if the Russian interference didn't change the results at all, the fact that they tried to interfere should be considered extremely significant. Putin obviously doesn't have American interests at heart and has used American incompetence (from both Trump and Obama) to increase his standing on the global stage. Putin is not a good guy and it disturbs me how many people in this country seem to view him positively.
Tank
Hall of Famer
Lol.....of course the Russians could have been involved in some sort of cyber espionage regarding the elections, as I'm sure we have done all over the world as well in attempts to influence certain elections. It's what they/we do and it's nothing new. Latching onto it as if it were some great revelation is nothing more than attempt to explain away the failure of a political party's platform and campaign.
To be frank though, I kind of doubt the Russians really care who the President of the USA is as that doesn't change the basics of our democracy and really means nothing to their political agenda.
To be frank though, I kind of doubt the Russians really care who the President of the USA is as that doesn't change the basics of our democracy and really means nothing to their political agenda.
Last edited:
I think it's pretty irrelevant that the U.S. has interfered with elections in the past (which has been mostly, if not exclusively, to prevent Communism/Genocide) when the issue is Russia's intent to keep the leadership of the United States in a state of incompetence. Nobody reliable is actually saying that Hillary would have won without Russian interference that I have seen. But it definitely should be investigated and brought to people's attention.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Yeah and I've lost faith in Mueller being partial when he's hiring a bunch Clinton donors as his staff and apparently is a good friend of Comey's. They trying to do everything they can to find something so basically they going after Paulk Manafort who at first ran the Trump campaign but was fired well before Trump got elected. That's all they got going for them and its been what 9 months and they have nothing?? You don't consider that ridiculous. This crap should go on thru Trump's whole presidency? Don't you see that's what the Dems want?
Did you hear Comey testify? He said he told Trump 3 times he is not under investigation. The real investigation should Susan Rice for leaking classified info on unmasking and Loretta Lynch for obstruction. Evidence is 2 fold against them but you don't hear about it from MSM. They'd rather talk about unfounded theories.
Also you saying in a post to Tank that the US only interferes to prevent communism/genocide. Obama clearly interfered in Israel's and Canada's election and then after his presidency was all up in France's elections. How does that fit your theory.
And to anybody I'm still waiting to hear how a Trump presidency helps Russia. In case nobody realizes we're not getting along real well with them lol.
Russia wants trump as president for a multitude of reasons... here are just a few as an outsider:
- trump suggests a return to isolationism politics (he literally campaigned with America first as a slogan)... isolationism would reduce American influence/interest in the rest of the world which leaves a power vacuum for Russia to fill
- trump's active bigotry, misogyny and homophobia overshadow Russia's horrendous homophobia that's been recently highlighted
- a trump-led America is likely to lose the respect of other western powers because of his erraticism, isolationism and refusal to believe climate science - he is intensely ridiculed throughout the rest of the world which again benefits Russia despite any hostility they still get from trump - if they did interfere in the election and trump knew about it/advocated for it then he is weakened in any negotiating position he might want to take against Russia which gives them more global power and a license to do whatever they want
- within America, he will likely weaken them economically - his promise to bring jobs to the rust belt is not economically viable given the plans he put forward, his threats of tariffs towards foreign conglomerates may increase jobs in the USA but will cost the US more either through increased subsidies which could be spent on social and welfare or even military issues within the US or will increase the price of goods which again does not help the average citizen, likewise any promise to build a wall will be economically crippling because, im sorry, but Mexico won't be paying for it because why would they - all this weakens the US economy and the spending power of all its non-elites which in turn reduces control over the rest of the world
- despite the pressurised current global situation, trump spent his entire election campaign and a lot of the time since validating putin's questionable leadership of Russia which gives credence to his legitimacy on the global stage
- also this is the only point where I'm not being entirely impartial but trump's an incompetent idiot - which of course helps Russia too
There are more reasons too but you said you hadn't seen any so here are the summaries of just a few
1. I think Mueller will be impartial, don't really know about all the prosecutors, but prosecutors are by definition never impartial. The investigation is directed towards finding whether or not there was a link between the Trump campaign and Russia- not necessarily whether Trump personally was in contact with the Russian government. So I don't think it would be correct to characterize the investigation as a witch hunt. Mueller's role as special counsel commenced in May, so I wouldn't be surprised if it took them another month or so to announce their findings. At this point we know that guys like Manafort and Flynn had Russia connections, but not much more than that. It is possible (even likely imo) that Russia acted of their own volition, but, again, the investigation will likely tell us what contact existed between the Trump campaign and Russia.
2. Comey did say that Trump was not under investigation- and that was probably true. I do not think that Comey was investigating Trump, I think he was solely investigating what Russia intended to do in the election. And ultimately he did reach the conclusion that Russia intended to interfere with the election. I also believe that Rice is being investigated (she's testifying before Congress soon either way). Lynch is also being investigated for her role in the Clinton probe. The media has, and likely always will, have a bias- just need to know where to get news from.
3. I tried to find some facts about interference with Israeli, Canadian, and French elections and couldn't find anything reputable. Just crazy Soros/Conspiracy Theory stuff.
I think Russia wanted Trump to be President because they viewed him as weak and without leadership qualities and more importantly- someone who wouldn't stand against them. Though it did not exactly turn out that way, Trump did claim he was going to stay out of the Middle East. Trump oddly praised and spoke highly of Putin both before and during the campaign. His weird runarounds on Ukraine and Syria also probably encouraged Russia during the campaign.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
Honestly I think Russia's interests in a Trump presidency are a lot simpler than that - and nothing particularly shadowy (maybe there's something in the speculation that Trump's got a ton of money from Russian banks but I'm assuming that's hearsay until there's actual proof - which may take years to establish either way so no point getting into all that). If you look at its economy you see a small-time player that's in the same ball park as Korea, and smaller than Canada and Brazil. And if you look its growth figures over the past two decades you see a lot of negative growth, with a very fragile recovery starting in 2010 - promptly followed by negative growth ever since the sanctions over the Ukraine crisis kicked in and no sign of that easing up.
Essentially Putin's a master at projecting power and influence (that's why moral victories over the US in Syria are so important to him - all that's largely for show), but he's running a crippled economy that's getting worse and he needs to start getting sanctions lifted. There's no way Hillary was going to get them lifted, since she follows the "Washington playbook" as closely as anyone. Trump (either implicitly or explicitly) promised a softer stance at least, so that's who they wanted. It doesn't mean he's in Putin's pocket or anything (and the pee tape rumours, while amusing, are probably nothing - Russian agents don't give out that much information to other Russian agents, much less Western ones). All the talk of Rex Tillerson's "Order of Friendship" medal or whatever it was doesn't mean an awful lot because he's divested his holdings (unlike the POTUS).
It's also no coincidence the anti-Russia candidate in France had hackers try to attack his campaign, while the two that supported lifting sanctions got off largely unscathed and more likely than not got a little help in the form of campaign donations. It doesn't mean there's some kind of Russian shadow organisation pulling the strings in the west and it doesn't even mean MLP and FF were in on the act themselves.
But with that said, it now seems completely unanimous that Russia tried to influence the elections - and that in itself is a serious thing. Whether or not Trump and/or his campaign were in on it is under investigation by at least three government bodies so I think that should be allowed to play itself out (which could take years). But no matter who else was or wasn't involved, if the US cares about its sovereignty Russia should be looking at facing another round of sanctions once all this is over.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Ok cool.
1st off globalization and foreigners should not be first. Americans especially middle class have been pushed aside for too long. Our jobs leaving this country does not benefit the US and our influence will not be affected in the world cuz of "isolization" We'll still be giving plenty of foreign aid even with a 28% cut and we'll still have plenty of trade partners that depend on us.
Sorry you believe Trump is a bigot since he is not. That's just liberal ideology
There's also scientists that say climate change is overrated. It was warmer in the 1400's than the 1900's. But ya know Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio flying around in their private jets and in case you haven't heard Merkel is wanting to work with Trump on a new climate deal. The first one had the US doing all sorts of emission remodels and forking out money while we watched all our jobs go to other countries who had less restrictions like China. Also senate did not agree with this deal that's why it was an "agreement" not a treaty. Also about other countries not wanting to help us against Russia trust me that's not happening. Who do you think is protecting Ukraine right now? Who are they gonna ask help from? Germany?
Really weaken us economically. first off do you know most countries do tariff our goods? Hows that fair? Yep the economy is doing bad but my 401k is just jumping. Might want to check out some Wall St numbers. Lets just say all in all Trump is working out better trade deals. And the wall. My favorite subject. First off keeping our jobs from going to Mexico means they're paying for it. Reworking NAFTA. Less foreign aid since it seems like they're not spending it to help their citizens. You didn't think he meant they was writing a check?
Putin already had credence on the national stage and Hillary gave him more credence by signing off on 22% of our uranium. NYT actually broke that news lol. She helped him a lot more than Trump ever will.
Trump is a multi billionaire and you say he is an idiot. Think about that one.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Well said but I firmly believe there was no collusion and WikiLeaks wasn't hack jobs done by Russia. Look up Seth Rich when you get a chance. Assange even alluded this is where he got the info from. All WikiLeaks if you think about all had to do with Bernie being screwed over.
The Raven
Veteran
Obama mocked the police? I can understand where you're coming from but I disagree. Sure, he called ISIS the JV team. Accurate, at the time. Every country in the west respected him. In other words, every ally and most of the first world.
Idk, why would the west's biggest pain in the ass want to push an inexperienced Trump in the Oval instead of a former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator? Hmmm. Who knows?
Look, I really don't think there's much to Russia, and I know Hill made that uranium deal. I wish it would go away but those goddamn Democrats on Capitol Hill smell blood in the water, and nothing else is happening (fault of both parties) so it's the only thing the press has to write about. Ever notice that Russia went away when the House unveiled their healthcare bill and went away again when the Senate version came out? Russia is to Democrats what birtherism was to Republicans: a bullshit distraction conjured up to rile the base.
The biggest issue to me, again, is that we have the least qualified president in history and it's starting to show. The man clearly does not know how to govern or lead. Numerous news outlets have even reported of people quitting the WH or not accepting jobs because of Trump. What message does that send? Before Trump, it was unheard of to turn down a WH job. Now, nobody bats an eye.
He inherited millions of dollars, an already establish empire, and the best financial minds the country had to offer. I'm really not impressed. I'm not saying he's a complete idiot, but he's nowhere near as smart as his base thinks, and his expertise is in business, not public policy.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
"America First" sounds well and good, and in principle every country should be putting their own interests first, but I'd argue that a mutual opening up of the markets (and keeping them open) is the best way to drive that. Foreign aid makes up about 0.5% of federal spending, so even cutting 30-plus per cent of it won't do an awful lot for lowering the deficit or furthering American interests. One (very valid) complaint I see from Trump supporters is that they're sick of pumping money into the military and being the world police at the expense of healthcare and education funding - which I agree with, but both of Trump's skinny budgets to date have involved increased military spending. There's nothing stopping the US from simply paring back military spending and redistributing it - and voters should get pissed off at leaders who promise to do that and then do the opposite. I saw one analysis where scaling back the bloated national security agencies and upgrading neonatal healthcare would save almost 20 times as many lives. But I digress.
It's true jobs have been leaving, but in the past decade especially automation has been a much bigger part of that. There are 7 million fewer manufacturing jobs than there were in 1979, but manufacturing production has doubled in that time. Threatening to whack tariffs on China and Mexico makes for good soundbite material, but the actual impact of those tariffs is usually overblown or has a greater cost than it's worth. For example China in 2009 flooded the US market with 50 million tyres, and in response Obama put a 35% tariff on Chinese tyres until they scaled back production. It saved about 1200 jobs, but the corresponding price hikes meant it cost the economy about $900,000 for each of those jobs. Meanwhile, China put a 105% tax on chicken feet in retaliation, which cost chicken farmers about $1.1 billion in lost exports. Meanwhile, for all the talk of getting manufacturing jobs back from China, a Wells Fargo report published in January estimates about 70% of its factory jobs are at risk due to automation in the next decade. So putting up tariffs won't bring jobs back from China, because they've already either been lost to Bangladesh and Vietnam (now that China's becoming a middle-income economy a lot of lower-paid jobs are heading elsewhere now) or they're vanishing altogether. Free trade is complicated and it's asymmetrical, so some regions win and others lose - but every country benefits in the bigger picture. Consumers get more choice, every producer is forced to become more efficient, and everyone gets access to bigger markets. The question that people need to be asking is how to best compensate the losers from free trade (the regions that gain jobs from free trade aren't always the regions that lose them due to the same reason). If I were to guess, the answer would be something more like a UBI, better compensation laws for displaced workers and a form of robot tax (taxing Amazon's drones like actual employees, for example), but that's one of the big macroeconomic questions of our time. If the Dems want to win back power any time soon they need to start finding answers to those questions, because even though I think Trump's completely misguided in his rhetoric, at least he's suggesting something.
Wall Street numbers don't mean an awful lot imo (and I say this to anyone who uses the sharemarket as proof Obama was great for the economy btw). The Dow Jones, for example, is just a weighted index of the share price of a few big players that relies disproportionately on the performance of Goldman Sachs - John Authers has written a fair bit about this for the Financial Times. The S&P indices are better since they factor in market cap, but they too tend to be caught up in market hype and panic. The current growth shows an optimism that Trump will get his tax cuts and deregulations passed, which in itself is a good thing but the September budget will be a more accurate indicator of investor confidence. Fiscal policy usually takes at least a year to see its true effects, so it's too early to pass blame/credit for the state of the economy onto Trump yet.
Sincere question since I haven't seen any details on this yet, but how many jobs do you expect the wall to save? The average family pays about $14,000 in federal taxes, and if Trump gets the $2.6 billion he's asked for from the Treasury the wall will have to be shown to have saved 185,715 jobs (where the taxes do nothing but fund the wall - no new spending on infrastructure or anything else) for it to be worth it. If his own conservative estimates on the campaign trail of $8 billion prove to be the actual spend then it'd need to save 571,429 jobs - otherwise the project adds to the national debt. I feel like the wall is a moot point since I don't see the House Republicans freeing up the money, but I find the economics of infrastructure projects pretty interesting so it's an interesting hypothetical.
A lot of world powers these days are torn between a 19th century "spheres of influence" model and the post-war interconnected one that the US has obviously done a lot to help build. The US role in the world has already been poked at a couple of times, albeit in comparatively minor ways (China using its own pressure to get South Korea to back out of buying the THAAD defences, and I think Saudi Arabia used Trump's visit as an implicit carte blanche to set up its current blockades on Qatar), but the big tests will probably be if Russia tries something else similar with the Ukraine, what happens if China keeps ramping up its hard power in the South China Sea, or how the US and China handle any developments on the Korean peninsula. As an observer in the Asia-Pacific I know China's been growing its influence a lot in these parts (which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing - a lot of that is in the form of increased investment and foreign aid), and the US sits at an interesting pivot point in it all. Asia is going to be the most lucrative and dynamic region of the next century, and the US exerting the right kind of influence will lead to a huge amount of prosperity and opportunities for everyone (going back to the topic of coal, China knows about the impact of climate change and is working to become a bigger investor in clean energy - and the government is willing to pay BIG money to anyone that helps, representing one of the biggest export opportunities in human history). That's why I think backing out of the TPP was a mistake (and would have been had Hillary done it too) - the agreement itself was largely about setting up a regional trading bloc with US-based standards for things like IP protection. It had set the stage for China to join the bloc in the future, but it would have to do so on US terms.
Sorry for rambling. I'm starting a Masters in Professional Economics next year and I find a lot of this stuff really interesting. It's just a shame that none of the big players in the media seemed interested in covering this stuff on the campaign trail and how these days everyone's obsessed with the Russia thing (which 100% needs to be looked into, but like The Raven says it's more of a distraction than anything else at this point) or whatever Trump said on Twitter that day.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Shoooo a lot to touch on Inqui and I'll do the best I can.
I'm not totally against putting more money into the military especially for defensive purposes. Our military has been torn down significantly during the last 8 yrs but yes I'm totally against forcing our will on other countries and policing but on our budget we have to cut spending we're 20 trillion dollars in debt. Hell we're in debt to Mexico for gawdsakes but Dems never want to cut anything. They'll just say we hate the poor or some kind of spiel like that. Planned parenthood for example whose business is 93% abortions is a must but I guess we need baby parts for scientific purposes. I'd be all for giving out birth control or free condoms or something geewhiz. Its very simple if you cant afford a baby don't get pregnant but I also strongly believe this should become a state issue not a federal one. If taxpayers elect a certain set to run their state govt and their for that then so be it. I am only using this one instance as an example. There's so much more
Now about manufacturing jobs you're 100% correct about automation. I've posted about this before especially about advanced AI and it worries me to death and this is not only factories but farms, restaurant ordering, even toll roads. hell they're even practicing using self driving tractor trailers over in the Netherlands. That could cut jobs like you said 70% with only operators and mechanics operating this machinery. We can really thank Silicon Valley for this but to me advanced technology is not really a good thing. I mean cant people wait a little for their product or be inconvenienced somewhat but of course the real issue is the bottomline buck for the business itself. Tbh I don't know how we're gonna handle this situation and its coming quick. Also interesting about the Chinese tires. I didn't know about that.
The Wall St #'s I believe do mean a lot and its gonna spiral down when our Sept budget comes around cuz the govt will shut down imo since Trump already said most of his stuff better be in it but I also think it'll be a complete overreaction like Brexit
Now about paying for the wall. Trump was mainly talking about tariffing companies that left the US to manufacture in Mexico and both Ford and Carrier decided to stay which is good. Saving jobs is not the only way Mexico could pay for the wall I also tal;ked about reworking NAFTA, less foreign aid and not just to Mexico but also some of the Central American countries, less illegal immigration cuz a lot of the money they make here gets sent home and gets spent on the Mexican economy. A big plus that has nothing to do with Mexico paying for the wall is slowing the illegal flow of drugs especially heroin which profiting somebody south of the border. Heroin is a real big issue right now in the US
I'd have to look more into TPP but China becoming more fuel efficient I'll believe it when I see it. Best I knew China didn't have to do nothing until 2030 under the ill fated Paris Climate Agreement when they probally would have just bowed out in 2029 lol
As someone who has always been hardcore against brexit I think the recent uk election results have shown how the ramifications of brexit and its importance in the political landscape haven't been overblown - for the first time in decades, traditionally richer constituencies voted for the left-wing Labour Party who put forth their most left-wing manifesto in recent history and had their largest vote share increase since just after the Second World War
I still sometimes get angry about the brexit result and all it means as a young person who has always valued the EU - most of our generation associates as European as much as British and/or as multicultural and open and it transcends education demographics in young people which is rare - there's still a huge part of me that hopes the negotiations go terribly and we eventually can back out of it
Anyway, I digress.
I hope this doesn't seem like antagonism but can I ask what makes you think the trump's a bigot thing is liberal ideology given what he has publicly said and suggested about women, LGBT rights, abortion doctors, foreigners, race and non-Christian religions. In some cases quite prominently...
In terms of the Paris climate agreement, the members unanimously agreed to be even more stringent in terms of their targets which is when china joined - given their mass fossil fuels industry - any improvement from china will be huge for the rest of the world - and as for al Gore and Leo dicaprio, I think you'll find that they've just been bringing publicity to what is the 100% peer-reviewed consensus that climate change is real, significant, dangerous and caused by man. For the most recent example of global temperatures rising just look at the record temperatures recorded in the Middle East this summer - the highest recorded temperatures in history of over 53 celsius and it happened not just on a one day spike but at least twice so far and we're only just in July
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
On Brexit I was talking about the Wall St reaction where it tumbled and everybody was predicting the end of the world.
First of all you're not antagonistic at all by asking me a fair question about the bigotry and why I think its all liberal ideology. When you say something about a woman the liberal ideology is that they're talking about ALL WOMEN. If he's talking about Pelosi he's not also talking about Liz the homemaker from Kansas but the Dems will make you think he is. Trump doesn't have the greatest track record with women ( using the P word was very very bad) but he's also one of the first to break ground in the 70's to hire women to be CEO's of his companies. That was unheard of back then. The bottomline is if women want equal everything which they should then they have to be able to take criticism w/o saying a man is sexist all the time. Also that speech about Mexicans being criminals and rapists was taken way out of hand especially when they only show that snippet but he was praising them before he said that and some of them are criminals and rapists but yet again Dems will make it sound like he was talking about ALL HISPANICS that includes people from Puetro Rico, Ecuador wherever. The bottomline tho is he should never have put it into that context but he still ended up with 29% of the Hispanic vote. When has he ever said anything negative against LGBT rights? Or anything against black people? Yet Dems will holler he hates em. And on Muslims he is only talking about radical Islam (one form of religion when you claiming all non Christian) and if you don't think they're a problem I don't know what to tell you. Obama banned Iranians from coming over in 2011 did you have a problem with that? When Trump does it its racist. Should Americans be protected at all or should we just get used to the violence.
Abortion doctors? I cant even believe you added that when I personally believe they're killers. They're killing a healthy baby man. Smh. Only way I can even fathom abortion would be rape and incest cases. Again pregnancy can be avoided and abortions should not be tax payer funded in no way shape or form.
If you think about it there's a lot of bigoted outfits in the democratic party. Black Panthers, La Raza, The Muslim Brotherhood. They only care about their cause. Just cuz they're non white doesn't mean they're not bigots. Bigots aren't just white people but Dems will have you believe that. Dems would say Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are bigots. Hell they trash Ben Carson all the time shouldn't that be bigoted.
So hopefully you understand why I'm saying this is liberal ideology since they always saying somebody is racist or an islamophobe or is sexist. That's their fallback every time.
- Status