Chairchucker

Maybe he got lost on the way to the local school.

Probably just out walking his shotgun.

This feels like sarcasm but also reads identically to things I have seen people earnestly say, may I please have a hint as to whether you are serious?

No! I acknowledge that he SAID he doesn't agree with it once it became apparent that it was deeply unpopular! Again, he is a liar!

Yes. He is constantly lying. He supported abortion bans and suddenly walked it the heck back and tried to downplay it when he realised what a deeply unpopular move it was.

Paradoxically, while I think Trump being dead (or just, removed from the public consciousness and discourse and with his tiny sex offending hands kept well away from the nether regions of women everywhere) would immediately make the world an immeasurably better place, I don't think politically motivated assassinations are a good precedent to set. I also don't think we need to avoid criticising fascists for being fascists just because the fascist gun loving country they've helped create might use any excuse to shoot someone. Also, while we're on the subject of gun violence, there have been 527 mass shooting deaths in the USA so far this year, and if you picked any of those 527 victims at random, I would cheerfully and without hesitation swap them for any one of the predominantly Republican law makers who consistently refuse to pass legislation restricting the sale of firearms, because maybe if the violence was happening to them they'd feel it was worth taking action.

Trump being a threat to Democracy should not be a particularly controversial statement, unless you're particularly dedicated to the gimmick of enlightened centrism. He repeatedly refused to accept the result of an election, up to and including inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol, he tried to convince his VP not to certify the election, he said that maybe his VP deserved to be murdered for not overthrowing the election, he said he'd be a dictator, (but only on day one!) he's repeatedly cosied up to and expressed admiration for dictators, including suggesting that maybe America should have a President for life like China has, he told people that after they voted him in they'd never have to vote again. I know for some reason you are relentlessly dedicated to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe his seemingly infinite bounty of statements that reveal what a corrupt, horrible person he is actually mean something else, but just once, why not listen to what he actually says, over and over and over again?

I think it'll be a little while yet before Republicans try to campaign on the subject of security at their rallies.

It can be simultaneously true that: 1. Donald Trump is the worse candidate for Palestine 2. Current Democrat policy needs to be better.

That's OK Bruce I wasn't really trying to start a new topic, I was just having a cheeky jab about your seemingly boundless enthusiasm for giving one of the worst human beings alive as much benefit of the doubt as you can possibly spare.

Oh yeah, do we also need to separately examine the context around all the rapes he did to see if he's a proper rapist or just a casual one?

This is a direct quote from one of your posts, and the part of it to which I was responding: "I base my views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes, I dont subscribe to identity politics or personality politics." Because you claimed that you base your views on politics around policies and outcomes, I shared a number of outcomes. You appeared reluctant to discuss those outcomes. Since you would prefer to talk about whether or not Trump is racist, a thing you seemed to be claiming was not your priority, let's do that I guess. Donald Trump was super big on the 'birther' conspiracy theories. A thing that has coincidentally only been targeted at Barack and Kamala, but interestingly not Donald Trump, whose mother was born in Scotland and whose father was born to German immigrants. He continued arguing for these conspiracy theories years after the release of Obama's long form birth certificate. He called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists. After two of his supporters beat a homeless Latino man with a metal pipe, he said '...the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again." He said that the federal judge who presided over the Trump Uni fraud case couldn't do his job because he was "of Mexican heritage." After four black men and one Latino were cleared of rape by way of DNA evidence, he took out a full page ad calling for New York to being back the death penalty to punish them. Trump signed a travel ban from seven Muslin-majority countries. He later claimed that this would protect the USA from terrorists. When he said that, in the fifteen years since the 11 September attacks, not one of the terrorists who killed people in American were from any of the countries he enacted a travel ban against. Also, for some reason he didn't ban travelers from Muslim-majority countries where he held large business interests, like Saudi Arabia or Turkiye. He referred to Elizabeth Warren as 'Pocahantas,' (on a few occasions including during a speech to Native American veterans of WWII) and said that the only reason she claimed Native American heritage was she had 'high cheekbones'. (WTF?) He reportedly said that Haitians "all have AIDS" and Nigerian immigrants would never "go back to their huts." His campaign chose a white nationalist to serve among California's delegates. After a bunch of white supremacists marched and shouted slogans like "The Jews will not replace us," a white nationalist drove his car into some counter protesters and killed one. Trump said that there was both blame and 'very fine people' on both sides. He complained about the removal of Confederate monuments. He pardoned a mayor who was convicted of criminal contempt for racially profiling Latinos. He called NFL players who protested police brutality against black people by kneeling during the anthem 'sons of bitches' and said they should be fired. He retweeted anti-Muslim videos from the deputy leader of a British ultranationalist hate group. He is reported to have referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations as '****hole countries', questioned why the USA would want to allow immigrants from those countries, and suggested the US try to get more immigrants from places like Norway. He presided over a policy of separating immigrant children from their parents. He suggested that four congresswomen of colour, all of whom were American citizens and three of whom were born in the USA, go back to their countries. He kept referring to COVID-19 as the 'Chinese virus' even after the World Health Organisation advised him not to because it could give rise to racial profiling. He tweeted a video of his supporter shouting 'white power' at anti-Trump supporters. He called the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' a 'symbol of hate'. He promised to veto a Defence bill, over a provision for removing the names of Confederate generals from military bases. He declined to condemn the Proud Boys, white supremacists who endorse violence. If it's not clear to you that Trump is racist, that does not reflect well on you.

Good thing that's nowhere near what I said at any point. To recap, my original point, in direct response to your dubious claim that you "base [your] views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes," was that among the outcomes of a Trump presidency was that in 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses tripled, hate groups increased by 4% and hate crimes by 17%. Some other outcomes were the Department of Agriculture being banned from using the term 'climate change', executive orders gutting obamacare, withdrawal of federal protection for trans students, reductions of rights for federal employees, making it easier for fossil fuel companies to lay pipelines, and scaling back environmental reviews when building highway. So it is just super weird that you decided to ignore the actual point of my post and argue a barely relevant point using a source that didn't actually support your position, and now respond by arguing against a claim I never made.

I posted a reply a little while back that is somewhat lengthier than this one is gonna be and the forum ate it so I gave up and did other things instead but I'm back and will try again I guess. My original post was primarily addressing your claim that you "base [your] views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes", and I listed a number of outcomes. It's curious that you ignored all of that and went instead for my side comment about Trump's racism. Almost as if your claims that the things you cared most about were policies and outcomes, was a lie. The main point in that paragraph wasn't about Trump's racism in and of itself, but the flow on effects of that. The 'record numbers' spoken of by the article you posted were 17%, up from 8%. Obviously even 8% is still too high, but I guess black people are just as capable of voting against their own interests as white people are. The article does not even attempt to argue that Trump is not racist, it moreso lays out some of the reasons that he is, as a contrast to the point that black people seem to be voting for him anyway. The article's point is not, 'black people are voting for Trump, therefore how racist could he be?' It is more, 'black people are voting for Trump despite his racism.' The actual given reasons for this change is things like younger black voters not having the same attachment to civil rights legacy movements, or disillusionment with the Democratic party not treating black voters particularly well even despite the fact that it's been black voters who have consistently been more likely to vote Democrat. The article is more an indictment of the way the Democrats have taken the black vote for granted, than it is remotely vindicating Trump from being racist.

Did you even read this yourself? It doesn't support your position in the slightest.