Is this who you are?

[rogue06]

Is it measured by how much it triggers conservative snowflakes?

Much like genocide you seem to have your own definitions for snowflakes. I've never seen conservatives demanding time off to deal with an election they didn't like. I've never seen conservatives require safe spaces to retreat to filled with coloring books and the like to help them cope. But then you think Joseph Stalin was a right winger so your confusion is to be expected.

[oxmixmudd]

One side makes obsecene gestures at a member of the press, the other has killed people and attempted to assassinate sitting members of Congress. Sorry, not the same.

Pix, you can't win this, and I'm not going there. The crazies are everywhwre. And if a leader feeds the fire, there are more than enough crazies to burn the world down on both sides.

So back to the op: is this who you are?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Much like genocide you seem to have your own definitions for snowflakes. I've never seen conservatives demanding time off to deal with an election they didn't like. I've never seen conservatives require safe spaces to retreat to filled with coloring books and the like to help them cope. But then you think Joseph Stalin was a right winger so your confusion is to be expected.

You've never seen a conservative blow up an abortion clinic? You have never seen a conservative take a rental van and blow up an entire building? You've never seen a conservative go and shoot up the TSA? You've never seen a conservative tie a gay man to a truck and drag him to his death?

The crazies are everywhere, on all sides. And now we hava president willing to feed the fire in the crazies on both sides.


So to the op: is this who you are?

Jim

[Mountain Man]

He rebuffed him multiple times but kept being asked about until one time he replied he wasn't sure who he was and since that time he didn't specifically rebuff him for the umpteenth time the MSM characterized it as Trump accepting the endorsement.

And if you want to play that game neither the DNC or Hillary renounced the support from Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

And Hillary glowingly spoke of Grand Cyclops of the KKK Robert Byrd, referring to him as her "friend and mentor" and "the conscience of the Senate".

https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...bert-byrd-kkk/

[One Bad Pig]

A video of what Jim Acosta faced trying to cover a Trump rally in Florida.

Is this you? Are the people posting here in support of Trump people that would act like this, or that would stay at a Trump rally while people are acting like this?

Is this who you are?

No. I wouldn't go to a Trump rally in the first place, and I don't use obscene gestures.

But this is what Trump is encouraging, asking for, stirring up. Do you approve?

Is this who you are?


Jim

I don't approve either side stirring up crap like this. One wonders why you only call out one side.

Rude behavior is rampant from the left, yet I rarely see that called out; if anything, it's given full-throated support. Hypocrite much?

[oxmixmudd]

Fake news. Trump explicitly disavowed David Duke and the KKK.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/polit...kkk/index.html

And how long did it take, and only after a great deal of pressure did he finally cave. But I should have inserted 'immediately', not that it changes much in terms of the effective reality of implications of the incident.

If a man trying to be president doesn't know to immediately rebuff support from David Duke, he has no right to be president. And if he had any hesitation about what the correct response is upon learning who he is, then there is a major problem. All indications are there was both.

[oxmixmudd]

No. I wouldn't go to a Trump rally in the first place, and I don't use obscene gestures.

I don't approve either side stirring up crap like this. One wonders why you only call out one side.

Rude behavior is rampant from the left, yet I rarely see that called out; if anything, it's given full-throated support. Hypocrite much?

I support none of the equivalent actions on the left. I've never said it was ok. If it has been brought up in these discussions I declare it wrong. I specifically addressed antifa in my other active thread. There is no hypocrisy here on that front.

And thank you for taking a stand against that behavior.

Jim

[MaxVel]

You've never seen a conservative blow up an abortion clinic? You have never seen a conservative take a rental van and blow up an entire building? You've never seen a conservative go and shoot up the TSA? You've never seen a conservative tie a gay man to a truck and drag him to his death?

The crazies are everywhere, on all sides. And now we ha a president willing to feed the fire in the crazies on both sides.

Jim

People on the political right have had years and years of politicians like you who want to take the moral high ground, play fair, and be the better person. The result? So many things and changes that they hate; that attack the things that they hold dearest - and meanwhile the politicians that they elected are graceful losers.

The political left is plenty willing to do almost anything to get or maintain power, to many on the right would rather lose politely than win at all. People are sick of that- hence Trump - at least he fights back.

That's my reading of why Trump is so popular, and why many people don't care about his less pleasant aspects. Is it good? No, but it's better than the alternative- another loser Republican who can hardly even keep the left from making more changes, let alone actually implement anything like a conservative agenda.


The MSM is increasingly disliked, and increasingly recognised as largely dishonest and biased. Did you hear the guy shouting" Tell the truth"?


It would be neat to have a conservative President who met your moral ideals, but he wouldn't get anything of significance done. Jesus isn't currently available, so we're left with inevitably flawed people to do the job. Deal with it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix, you can't win this, and I'm not going there. The crazies are everywhwre. And if a leader feeds the fire, there are more than enough crazies to burn the world down on both sides.

So back to the op: is this who you are?

What side had killed people and attempted political assassinations?

[rogue06]

And how long did it take, and only after a great deal of pressure did he finally cave. But I should have inserted 'immediately', not that it changes much in terms of the effective reality of implications of the incident.

If a man trying to be president doesn't know to immediately rebuff support from David Duke, he has no right to be president. And if he had any hesitation about what the correct response is upon learning who he is, then there is a major problem. All indications are there was both.

As I previously noted he had denounced the endorsement several times in the past. In all those instances Duke was associated with the KKK but the one time he hesitated, saying he didn't know who Duke was, that association wasn't made. When reminded who Duke was, Trump immediately renounced him.

And again we are looking at a double standard here. Hillary nor the DNC never renounced the support of the CPUSA which according to your standard means she had no right to be president.

Considering that there are many different branches of the Ku Klux Klan^[1] and none speak for them all, this is an ignorantly inaccurate statement. In fact one, the Loyal White Knights, has endorsed your hero Hillary. Their Grand Dragon Will Quigg has announced his support for her several times.

But the real point is that no candidate can control who supports their candidacy. If they did then Hillary ought to be disqualified because the Communist Party USA announced their enthusiastic support of Hillary for president.

While most of the CPUSA membership initially backed Sanders they have jumped on the Clinton bandwagon as Party spokesman Sam Webb made clear as far back as last February:

CPUSA National Chairman John Bachtell has been going around trying to rally the troops for Hillary telling his fellow communists not to waste their vote on Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Interestingly, while Trump has denounced support from the Klan, nobody in the MSM appears to have asked Hillary to distance herself from the Communists^[2]. According to the Daily Caller when Bachtell first started trumpeting his support for Hillary this summer:

Source: Communist Party USA Chairman Voting for Hillary Despite Backing Bernie In Primary

Source

© Copyright Original Source

1. such as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Imperial Klans of America, Golden Circle Knighthood of the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan among many other splinter groups.

2. You know, the folks who produced such folks as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Who are responsible for slaughtering over a hundred million people trying to implement their policies. Talk about your "basket with the deplorables"

[rogue06]

I support none of the equivalent actions on the left. I've never said it was ok. If it has been brought up in these discussions I declare it wrong. I specifically addressed antifa in my other active thread. There is no hypocrisy here on that front.

And thank you for taking a stand against that behavior.

Jim

The point being if the Democrats were doing the same or worse then their candidate was just as unfit to be president as Trump. Unfortunately we are stuck with an entrenched two-party system and either Trump or Hillary was going to be our 45th president. Would you be as adamant about trying to kick her out of office? I suspect not considering you have said she wasn't as bad as Trump.

[Mountain Man]

And how long did it take, and only after a great deal of pressure did he finally cave. But I should have inserted 'immediately'...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-i-d...out-david-duke

It was obviously a "gotcha" question, and Trump's response was understandably cautious. When he got more information, his denunciation was more firm.

Of course this is nothing like Hillary referring to Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd as her friend and mentor.

[rogue06]

People on the political right have had years and years of politicians like you who want to take the moral high ground, play fair, and be the better person. The result? So many things and changes that they hate; that attack the things that they hold dearest - and meanwhile the politicians that they elected are graceful losers.

The political left is plenty willing to do almost anything to get or maintain power, to many on the right would rather lose politely than win at all. People are sick of that- hence Trump - at least he fights back.

That's my reading of why Trump is so popular, and why many people don't care about his less pleasant aspects. Is it good? No, but it's better than the alternative- another loser Republican who can hardly even keep the left from making more changes, let alone actually implement anything like a conservative agenda.


The MSM is increasingly disliked, and increasingly recognised as largely dishonest and biased. Did you hear the guy shouting" Tell the truth"?


It would be neat to have a conservative President who met your moral ideals, but he wouldn't get anything of significance done. Jesus isn't currently available, so we're left with inevitably flawed people to do the job. Deal with it.

As I wrote a little over a week ago.

One of the biggest complaints about Trump is that he's a loud-mouth, uncouth lout. That he's rude, crude and lewd. And I cannot disagree with that. But the reality of the situation is that being polite and well-mannered has not helped a whit when dealing with the left.

Look at Romney for example. He is the epitome of being civil, respectful and graceful. A true gentleman. And the left (including the MSM) still savaged him and characterized him as being an ogre. Former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was quite proud of how he lied through his teeth about Romney not paying income taxes later boasting with a smirk "it worked didn't it?" In many ways George W. Bush was the same way. Too polite to deign to respond to scurrilous lies. He was above all that.

So along comes Trump. Who has never claimed to be a choirboy. Who is a bare knuckled street brawler -- and far more skilled at it than his opponents. And many of the Republicans in control are furious with him because of that. What's more is that he is actually getting things done. Folks are grading him not on what he says but what he does.

[oxmixmudd]

The point being if the Democrats were doing the same or worse then their candidate was just as unfit to be president as Trump. Unfortunately we are stuck with an entrenched two-party system and either Trump or Hillary was going to be our 45th president. Would you be as adamant about trying to kick her out of office? I suspect not considering you have said she wasn't as bad as Trump.

I have no way of knowing for sure. I would be against what I would be against, no matter who it was doing it. Trump raises so many red flags for me that I am motivated to care in a way I've not been in a long time. He crosses the threshold in a way no one else has IMHO. But it is not that I was not angered or that I didn't, in other venues, speak out against many of the things that happened under Obama, or Clinton.

You still don't get that I simply was not engaging ANYWHERE online in political debate until now. It started with the discussion on the Gay wedding cakes. I expressed my views there, which are not at all left facing, and I took all sorts of guff from those that hail from the left. Now I am expressing my views on Trump and where he is and now you all have binned me as being 'on the left' and 'ignoring what the left does'.

The reality is I am for what is right as defined by Christ and the Scripture. The reality is I engaged the civics forum only in the last few months and am not going to try to define what I think about the last 20 years of civil issues before I address any of the current ones I am concerned about. And there is no hypocrisy there that I know of. When you bring up issues with Obama I tell you what I think about them. I told you what I think about the media angle in the other thread. I have repeatedly let you know I am against many of the tactics used on the left, and that my politics is a mix of conservative and liberal, again based on what I understand as being right as defined by Christ and the Scripture.

I do not believe that because someone else I don't like did something wrong, that gives me the right to excuse someone I do like doing something wrong. Period. So appeals to me like "but the left does X' are meaningless. All I'm going to say is 'yes, that is wrong'. If you want to try to say I'm evil because I never brought up X in the conversation about Y, well so be it. It will not motivate me in the slightest to start making sure I find all the X's that might exist before I raise issue Y.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

If that was true and not evasion, it still means he is not qualified to be president in that he leads the entire nation and the racial issues that divide it must be understood by anyone leading it. If trump is truly as naive as he claimed to be, then he truly is disconnected from the country he proposed he can lead.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-i-d...out-david-duke

It was obviously a "gotcha" question, and Trump's response was understandably cautious.

Only if you are afraid your racist views might come to light ...

When he got more information, his denunciation was more firm.

??? 'more firm'. Here is what I would have said 10 seconds after learning David Duke had endorsed me:

"The KKK is a blight up this nation and this candidate will not now or ever accept their endorsement. I'd rather lose the race than win on their coattails. I want nothing from them and I request they keep their opinions about my candidacy to themselves."

And if you can't react like that immediately something major is wrong with you.

Of course this is nothing like Hillary referring to Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd as her friend and mentor.

That is ridiculous. He SHOULD know who he is. And even if he doesn't - how long does it take to be told what a white nationalist is or a white supremacist. 15 minues? The multi-day delay is indicative of a person that is tacitly for those sorts of views ( or more likely willing to win riding their coattails). And when he had another chance to deal with those issues (Charlottesville) he chose again to defer to the white supremacists. It is a serious problem.

Jim