Thanks Richard.
1. My point is the actions that spawn those epithets do not rise to the level of what they describe.
Moreover the person making such serious charges is obligated to prove them, not demand someone disprove them.
What action in Trump's personal history indicates he is a racist. The closest I am aware of was his complaint about Judge Curiel but that was based on the judge's membership in a lawyers group apparently affiliated with the fairly radical pro illegal immigration group La Raza. If that is the standard for racism then I suspect almost every person of every race qualifies (I do indeed find the claim by some on the left that minorities can't be racist to be so absurd that I find those holding it incapable of reasonable discussion)
If the claim stems from his desire to enforce immigration laws, is it actually the position of those on the left that having secure borders and attempting to prevent the illegal crossing of those borders and attempting to weed out criminals and terrorists from those we do allow in constitutes racism?
If it is I hope you are prepared to be at odds with most of the country including the large majority of immigrants who followed the law to emigrate here.
None of those rise to the level of racism as it has historically been understood. So what is this claim based on? And the preceding arguments apply to the charge of xenophobia as well. Indeed Trump has said those non criminal illegals deported would be free to then apply for legal entry and even citizenship. Hardly the policy of a racist xenophobe.
Misogyny as I understand it refers to those who are hostile to and perhaps even hate women. Trump's problem in this area seems to, on the contrary, be that he is entirely too fond of them.
His locker room rhetoric belies a man who has hired and trusted many women at some of the highest levels in his corporations.
2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the early 20s and in it made it rather clear he hated and would have no problem exterminating no small number of Jews. Moreover he began it in prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch to topple the German government. To imply Trump or his voters are embarked on that same road after he and they won an election fair and square is a type of McCarthyism that one ups McCarthy.
Who are these many fascist "leaders" who ran as fascists? Mussolini, the man who invented fascism was a man of the socialist left. He eventually combined a bastardsized socialism with nationalism to create fascism. In any event he didn't attain power legitimately. He and his fascists staged an intimidating insurrection and compelled the legitimate government to capitulate.
And it's always interesting when Hitler is described as a fascist. The origin of the term Nazi is of course the National Socialist Party. The ascribing by the left to free market, politically liberal parties in the West some kind of kinship with progressive men of the left like Mussolini and Hitler is one of the great political gymnastic maneuvers in history.
I never said you brought Hitler up. I was discussing the outlandish criticisms of Trump and his supporters one of which is he and they are rather like Hitler. Your implication Trump may very well be an incipient Hitler would seem to indicate I was not exactly too far from your views.
As to Mr Godwin the only thing funny is him beclowning himself by actually and recently endorsing the resort to Hitler regarding discussing Trump.
3. Tump was not describing an assault. The context of the discussion was that there are women who will throw themselves at celebrities and allow actions as the ones he described . Regardless of how crudely he put it does anyone seriously dispute what he said.
Moreover there is simply no comparison between his crude words and the actual innumerable actions by Hillary's husband, a man she was quite willing to talk about placing in charge of the economy. A former president is not just some house husband who can be dismissed as irrelevant when his spouse is running for the presidency.
4. That's pretty funny. If someone makes a false accusation against me I should examine myself to see what's wrong with me.That sentiment is particularly offensive in light of where this discussion is taking place; a board full o people subject to interminable character assassination and slanders.
The Communist PARTY USA endorsed Hillary Clinton as did many rap stars who regularly speak the most vile sentiments imaginable toward women and in some cases Jews and white people and brag about killing cops and judges. Indeed, our gracious First Lady allowed that she was shocked and scandalized by Trump's words and yet she and her husband have hosed with great fanfare guys who brag about raping "ho's" and pose on album covers with dead judge's under their feet and guns in their hands.
Do you believe you, Hillary and Michelle should all sit down and do some honest soul searching about what kind of intolerant, misogynistic and murderous thoughts and policies you support that would lead such people to support your candidate?
5. This one nearly deserves an LOL. Who is pitting one group against another but those who claim whites enjoy a privilege that oppresses minorities and gives whites an unfair advantage that government must resolve by taking from the privileged and giving to the oppressed? It's rather difficult to conjure a more precise example of pitting one group against another.
6. Earth to the left; there are no safe spaces. The world and life are hard, difficult places in which bad things happen all the time to everyone. There are any number of white women on this board whose lives were turned upside down by their own white mothers.
Anyone is entitled to carve out whatever "safe space" they can for themselves or their group. What they're not entitled is demand someone else be compelled to provide them one, especially if the demand entails they not have to hear some opinion they don't like.
With the notable exceptions of Reagan and Gingrich and a few others the GOP has largely accepted playing on a field constructed by their opponents playing a game with rules drawn up by those same opponents. The result has been a vast bureaucratic state that depends on and rewards the leadership of both parties.
Whatever Trump's faults he represents a chance to at least begin to break through that growing, extra constitutional and increasingly authoritarian state. That is why the entrenched establishment of the GOP fought Trump as vigorously as the Dems: cracking that gravy train threatens both establishments equally.
As far as Trump being sued, filing bankruptcy or posturing as a successful businessman, it is impossible to be in the businesses he is and not be sued repeatedly. Use of bankruptcy laws is perfectly legitimate and has been used by corporations of all sizes. It is especially common in boom and bust industries like construction and real estate. The fact remains he turned a medium sized fortune into a rather large one. If he had employees striking we can safely conclude he must have created jobs to be struck. In fact he created probably hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years. How many did Hillary create prior to her run? How about Obama?
If being sued or working for Goldman was disqualifying I assume you worked assiduously to defeat Hillary because she has been sued repeatedly and gave a multitude of speeches for many millions of dollars to Goldman. Moreover her husband's treasury secretary was the CEO of Goldman and the recipient of no small number of lawsuits.
Name someone outwardly racist that Trump is surrounding himself with. Argument by defamatory assertion is not actually argument. It's precisely what I described these gratuitous accusations to be; lazy name calling in place of thought and reasoned argument.
Finally take a look at this essay with an open mind:
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=8932Perhaps it will enlighten you. Perhaps not.
In any event thank you for the largely thoughtful, even if completely wrongheaded reply.
Mud
