So you actually find her racism to be acceptable after all. That it's OK in your opinion to stereotype and make fun of other races, frame black youth as super-predators, and be a raging anti-Semite to boot. Got it.
So you actually find her racism to be acceptable after all. That it's OK in your opinion to stereotype and make fun of other races, frame black youth as super-predators, and be a raging anti-Semite to boot. Got it.It's irrelevant if you explicitly voted for him, your posts on here clearly support him. Your attempt to depict Clinton as a racist is the typical sort of casual dishonesty that you always peddle in. You realize you aren't fooling anyone, right?
Trump is a racist and we all know it. If you want to defend a racist that has consequences as to how other people view you. If you don't want other people to consider you to be a racist, stop defending them.
There's also the fact that the "super predators" comment in no way ever referenced or insinuated race, it referenced gangs. Republicans decided that gangs means black people and convinced the gullible that Hillary's comment was racist. Honestly, the most racist thing about her comment was how the rightwing decided it meant black people when she never even remotely mentioned race.I just wanted to quote this post as it highlights just how low the right is willing to go to ignore the truth. Whataboutism at its finest.
The"racist" joke he's referring to:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/bill-de-blasio-hillary-clinton-racial-joke/index.html
Politifact disagrees with you.There's also the fact that the "super predators" comment in no way ever referenced or insinuated race, it referenced gangs. Republicans decided that gangs means black people and convinced the gullible that Hillary's comment was racist. Honestly, the most racist thing about her comment was how the rightwing decided it meant black people when she never even remotely mentioned race.
Politifact disagrees with you.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...llary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/
The full context of this incident does link children and superpredators, but nowhere in the speech does she directly label African-American youth this way.
Read the conclusion ffs...Mostly True.From your own link:
Total self ownage yet again from DSF. Why do you never read things before linking them?
Read the conclusion ffs...Mostly True.
No, it just confirms we are playing your usual game of I have to heal myself first before you will confess to feeling the same way I do. OK, There are some items of belief held by conservatives that fall within the realm of reason. They generally represent one face of a two sided coin.Actually, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he was impeached...assuming he has indeed committed an impeachable offense (other than being a complete ass clown). Does that make a decent and normal American like you feel better?
I don't perceive you as being anything other than a decent and normal American...and I would hope that you feel the same way about me...even if we don't happen to agree from time to time. I can't imagine a truly reasonable person feeling any other way.No, it just confirms we are playing your usual game of I have to heal myself first before you will confess to feeling the same way I do. OK, There are some items of belief held by conservatives that fall within the realm of reason. They generally represent one face of a two sided coin.
Read the conclusion ffs...Mostly True.
Context is hard...everybody knew what she was talking about.And the part that changed it from 'true' to 'mostly true' was that Clinton never mentioned African Americans.
Derrrrrrrrrrrrp. More self-ownage from DSF.
Back to the shutdown issue. Does anybody think Schumer will do it again on 2/8 if he doesn't get everything he wants in the bill?
Schumer doesn't have a lot to say about it. This is Mitch's tea party. If Mitch sees partisan advantage in shutting down the government again, he'll do it again.Back to the shutdown issue. Does anybody think Schumer will do it again on 2/8 if he doesn't get everything he wants in the bill?
Trump got what he wanted? I don't think so. He's been fairly specific about what he wants to see in the bill and I don't recall him being offered anything close to that.You mean after Trump getting what he wanted, rejecting it and forcing a shutdown?
Trump got what he wanted? I don't think so. He's been fairly specific about what he wants to see in the bill and I don't recall him being offered anything close to that.
Obvious to who? Therein lies the rub.
The Tea Party (aka the Freedom Caucus types) are the problem here. They don't want DACA passed in any form and will likely vote against any bill that gives them citizenship regardless if chain migration, the wall, border security, and diversity lottery issues are addressed. If DACA is to be passed, significant Democratic support will be needed and they'll need to be highly flexible on the related issues. If they aren't, mainstream Republican support will quickly die and DACA will die with it. That's the political reality here imo.Schumer doesn't have a lot to say about it. This is Mitch's tea party. If Mitch sees partisan advantage in shutting down the government again, he'll do it again.
The reality here is that Trump didn't get what he wanted.Of course you didn't. You don't deal with reality.
Trump hasn't gotten anything yet as Congress hasn't done its job. What Trump wants is hard to say as it changes with every commercial break.The reality here is that Trump didn't get what he wanted.
Trump's has been very clear about the generalities of what he wants. But I believe he's also open to being flexible regarding the details.Trump hasn't gotten anything yet as Congress hasn't done its job. What Trump wants is hard to say as it changes with every commercial break.
The Tea Party (aka the Freedom Caucus types) are the problem here. They don't want DACA passed in any form and will likely vote against any bill that gives them citizenship regardless if chain migration, the wall, border security, and diversity lottery issues are addressed. If DACA is to be passed, significant Democratic support will be needed and they'll need to be highly flexible on the related issues. If they aren't, mainstream Republican support will quickly die and DACA will die with it. That's the political reality here imo.
If DACA is to be passed, how do you think it will happen?I sincerely doubt that Ryan will allow a bill to be voted on in the House that can't pass with only Republican votes.
Trump's has been very clear about the generalities of what he wants. But I believe he's also open to being flexible regarding the details.
On Jan. 9, Trump told lawmakers to seek a bipartisan solution on immigration and signaled that he would sign whatever they put in front of him. Two days later, he flatly rejected a plan brought to him by Graham, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and others, helping to set back talks on avoiding a government shutdown that will happen at midnight if Congress cannot reach a deal.
Graham, who said he will not support a temporary funding bill passed by the House when the Senate takes it up Friday, sees Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller as part of the problem.
"The Stephen Miller approach to immigration has no viability. Tuesday, the president was in a good place. He was the president of all of us," Graham told MSNBC on Friday. "He spoke compassionately about immigration, tough on security, wanted bipartisanship. Two days later, there was a major change."
"I think the change comes about from people like Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller is well known in the Senate for having views that are outside the mainstream," he added.
If DACA is to be passed, how do you think it will happen?