Bleacher Bums Forum

Don't reply with an attack on other candidates with fodder from the usual suspects; defend a son of a man who attended KKK rallies and whose demonstrated the sins of its father.  Who claims to not know who David duke is and was ok with the support of white supremacist groups.

Great debate strategy.  This is horrible, but now take your number reason the guy is President, the number one reason why a moral, intelligent person might have voted for him off the table because it destroys my argument.  Therefore, you can't use it because it's not fair.  One could reverse your post and plug in the many sins of the Clintons and it would read pretty much the same.  Therefore, if it is the same, then perhaps people voted for the issues instead of the person.  Of course that can't be.  It has to be that people who voted for him are rubes, bigots, racist idiots.  When you start from a place of anger and hostility; what do you expect in return?

In more fun political news, Senator Ben Sasse spent Saturday afternoon as an Uber driver in Lincoln.

This is a thing who spent years trying to deligitimize an African American president with a crazy birth certificate conspiracy.

This a thing who called Mexicans rapists, murders, and some are probably OK.

I could copy and paste quotes that are examples of a morally bankrupt and dangerous person, but we've all seen them.

I can not forgive anyone who voted for that piece of filth. Imagine if this thing was your kids teacher.  Imagine leaving your daughter in a room with it.

This is a moral Armageddon.  An embarrassing stain for anyone who has ethics. This is the Cubs losing game 7 and then Joe Maddon complaining it's bc of the Mexican Umpire.

Don't reply with an attack on other candidates with fodder from the usual suspects; defend a son of a man who attended KKK rallies and whose demonstrated the sins of its father.  Who claims to not know who David duke is and was ok with the support of white supremacist groups.

Fu@&ing defend that.

"This is a thing...."

You challenge others to "defend" someone you in your very first sentence brand as a "thing," a non-human, and then you repeat that in your next sentence and once more later.

There is no sincerity in your challenge when you begin it that way, and there is no actual desire to discuss issues.

I do not shy away from anything remotely resembling an argument or debate, but you made it more than clear in your very first sentence you are not interested in anything resembling that.

I think we're seeing more rancor post election because almost everyone expected a Clinton win.  I tuned in to the election coverage expecting Clinton to be declared the winner as soon as a dozen polls closed.  We live in a replay and do-over society when we don't like a result.  I expect it to continue for some time.  I doubt there would have been this much rancor by Trump supporters had Clinton won; some, but not this much.  I think the Democratic Party just underestimated how disliked she is by the masses.

Disagree, Curt. Trump would have ranted about his "second amendment people" "doing something" about the "rigged election." There would absolutely have been protests, and given what actually happened at his rallies, perhaps much more violent protests than we're seeing now. His campaign showed a penchant for inciting violence - why in the world would we assume things would be different had he lost? Hell, even though he *WON*, so much of his public commentary has been to either continue to aggrandize himself ("Mitt called to congratulate me" "Kasich called to congratulate me" "Jeb, George W, and George HW called to congratulate me") or to continue to whine about those who disagree with him ("Professional protestors/media very unfair!" "NYT losing thousands of subscribers because of their poor coverage of me" "NYT so dishonest"). This guy and his followers were going to be noble in defeat? I don't think so - he's been a mixed bag at best in victory!

For however much Clinton is "disliked by the masses" let's not forget that Trump is disliked even more. His favorability ratings were lower, and Clinton is going to end up with at least a million more votes than him. Let's not let the electoral college obscure that fact.

Also think there's a LOT more to current protests than people simply expected Clinton to win. As mentioned before, she's going to win the popular vote by a VERY sizable margin, and many of the people who are protesting feel that Trump is personally dangerous to them. That combination of factors is leading to the "not my president" stuff that you're hearing. Had Trump not called Mexicans rapists or threatened Nazi-style registration of Muslims, had he vehemently disavowed the full-throated support of white supremacy groups, were his comments (to say nothing of the present allegations) about women not so vile, the post-election mood would be VERY different. Millions of voters legitimately FEAR what this outcome means for them. Pundits who want to boil these protests down to millennial cry babies who didn't get their way are painfully and sanctimoniously out of touch.

Well if you want our country over run with Muslims when we're clearly at war with them then Hillary was your man.

The Mexicans OTOH are a different issue.

They're normally very nice, hard working, people so if they want to come here and do the jobs the rest of us don't want to do for 10 times the pay they'd get at home then God bless them.

Just make them legal and make them pay taxes.

"Just make them legal and make them pay taxes."

Like Trump?

Yes, Tico.  It is taking place in areas where it can be done.  But there is no way to vet many of those asking for asylum from Syria.  There is literally no way to determine if a great many are who and what they say they say they are.  Those who can not be proven to be who and what they say they are should not be allowed into the country, no matter how long we have unsuccessfully tried to vet them.