Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

[Forty Two]

Oh, and regarding Byrd...The old cunt has nothing at all to do with 42 supporting Trump! It's just another example of 42's "whataboutisms". LOCK HER (and her husband) UP!

FYI, that wasn't the point under discussion. The point under discussion was whether good people can support a racist, or an alleged rapist, etc.

Animavore said no, a good person can't support such a person. However, if one looks to various politicians, one can see alleged racists and rapists being supported by various factions on all sides of the political spectrum.

I never said Byrd had anything to do with me supporting Trump, and it's not "whataboutism." I'm not saying "oh, sure it's good that Trump is a racist, because there are other racists." Again, the conversation was about the issue of whether good people can support alleged racists and rapists.

Can't they? If they can't - if the answer is no, then anyone who supported Bill Clinton is a bad person. Is that true? That's not whataboutism.

And, if good people can't support alleged racists and rapists, then Hillary Clinton must not be a good person, because she supported a racist.

[Forty Two]

In the future, if you feel I have not addressed a point that you want addressed, please prompt me to do so.

Last time I did you flew off the handle. Kindly refresh your memory about this and your next two posts.

Lol - yes, Pervin posts nasty bullshit to the effect of "stand by for 8 pages of equivocation" (from the master of equivocation, that was hilarious).

And you still have the temerity to claim that you don't tone police.

You're just ridiculous, man. That post was explaining the nature of my response, which Hermit had suggested was in the wrong tone. I explained why I responded as I did, and the reason was based on the nature of the posts directed at me. I'm not "policing your tone." Be as nasty as you want. It's not like you deny it, anyway.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and regarding Byrd...The old cunt has nothing at all to do with 42 supporting Trump! It's just another example of 42's "whataboutisms". LOCK HER (and her husband) UP!

FYI, that wasn't the point under discussion. The point under discussion was whether good people can support a racist, or an alleged rapist, etc.

Animavore said no, a good person can't support such a person. However, if one looks to various politicians, one can see alleged racists and rapists being supported by various factions on all sides of the political spectrum.

I never said Byrd had anything to do with me supporting Trump, and it's not "whataboutism." I'm not saying "oh, sure it's good that Trump is a racist, because there are other racists." Again, the conversation was about the issue of whether good people can support alleged racists and rapists.

Can't they? If they can't - if the answer is no, then anyone who supported Bill Clinton is a bad person. Is that true? That's not whataboutism.

And, if good people can't support alleged racists and rapists, then Hillary Clinton must not be a good person, because she supported a racist.

What's your reason for making the assumption that Animavore thinks Hillary or Bill are good people. Come on, this is about your biases and an inability to think in anything other than black and white terms.

[Forty Two]

Or, one of you could have acted like a normal human being, and prompted me by asking "42, did you see this? How do you think that impacts the issue of good people supporting racists?"

Why the fuck would we do that? You've got a long history of ignoring inconvenient posts.

I do not have that history, but you do.

You do realise your juvenile tactic of just throwing back every criticism of you onto me is really transparent, right?

You just project constantly -- you lie, so you accuse others of lying. You troll, so you accuse others of trolling. You have a history of disrupting threads, personal attacks, insults, namecalling, etc., so you try to create a comment series where you claim that you're being personally attacked by memes and such. You lack all self-awareness.

Prime example - the recent thread where you were claiming meme-attacks. I politely asked you to back up your claim with an example. You refused. You said it was too hard to find one example of the "not infrequent" meme attacks you've been subjected to. That's your long history - you do that all the time.

Oh piss off. Go ahead and tell me a practical way to find your memes that attack people in amongst your thousands of posts. If you can tell me a method other than physically going backwards through every post, then I'll give it a shot. Until then, grow a brain.

You said I do so "not infrequently." Wouldn't be hard at all to find one example in a the midst of such a frequency of personal attacks in meme form. I mean, these were memes that constituted personal attacks equivalent, in your mind, to someone directly insulting another member by, say, calling them a "retard" repeatedly. That's some serious meme-age there.

I realize that these "meme personal attacks" occur at such level that one has to sift through months of posts to possibly find one that would qualify as an example. There isn't one recently, right? Not one that you could go to my post history and click and find. They're "not infrequent", of course, and by "not infrequent" I'm sure you meant "rarely, if ever."

"Grow a brain," lol. You can't help it, can you?

[Forty Two]

Oh, and regarding Byrd...The old cunt has nothing at all to do with 42 supporting Trump! It's just another example of 42's "whataboutisms". LOCK HER (and her husband) UP!

FYI, that wasn't the point under discussion. The point under discussion was whether good people can support a racist, or an alleged rapist, etc.

Animavore said no, a good person can't support such a person. However, if one looks to various politicians, one can see alleged racists and rapists being supported by various factions on all sides of the political spectrum.

I never said Byrd had anything to do with me supporting Trump, and it's not "whataboutism." I'm not saying "oh, sure it's good that Trump is a racist, because there are other racists." Again, the conversation was about the issue of whether good people can support alleged racists and rapists.

Can't they? If they can't - if the answer is no, then anyone who supported Bill Clinton is a bad person. Is that true? That's not whataboutism.

And, if good people can't support alleged racists and rapists, then Hillary Clinton must not be a good person, because she supported a racist.

What's your reason for making the assumption that Animavore thinks Hillary or Bill are good people. Come on, this is about your biases and an inability to think in anything other than black and white terms.

Dude.... alright...

One, he has praised Hillary before. The question was if Hillary could be a good a person if she supported the racist Byrd. If he wants to go on record as saying she is not a good person, that's up to him. If she's not a good person, he sure as heck supported her for President of the US in his commentary on these boards. How can a good person support a "not good person" for President? I know the answer to that and so does Animavore and so do you -- we are limited in choices when we vote, so we have to choose the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich, so we pick the one we loathe the least sometimes. And, that's how many people, including myself, can be a Trump supporter. We think Hillary would have been worse for the country.

And, that's the point of the issue here - he says I must be a really bad person - awful, terrible things he said about me - because I support that accused rapist and racist Trump! It's not that voted for the candidate I thought best for the job given the choices available, no. I must be evil, he says.

Two, the question wasn't whether Bill Clinton was a good person. The question is whether people who supported him for President or support him now -- like me, who think he was a pretty darn good President and would vote for him (again) -- could be good people even though we supported an alleged rapist, and a racist. Right? The Nation says he enacted racist policies and Hillary supported them: https://www.thenation.com/article/hilla ... les-votes/ He wa accused of rape by multiple women, who we should believe. So, anyone supporting him must be an evil, son-of-a-bitch, according to Animavore.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and regarding Byrd...The old cunt has nothing at all to do with 42 supporting Trump! It's just another example of 42's "whataboutisms". LOCK HER (and her husband) UP!

FYI, that wasn't the point under discussion. The point under discussion was whether good people can support a racist, or an alleged rapist, etc.

Animavore said no, a good person can't support such a person. However, if one looks to various politicians, one can see alleged racists and rapists being supported by various factions on all sides of the political spectrum.

I never said Byrd had anything to do with me supporting Trump, and it's not "whataboutism." I'm not saying "oh, sure it's good that Trump is a racist, because there are other racists." Again, the conversation was about the issue of whether good people can support alleged racists and rapists.

Can't they? If they can't - if the answer is no, then anyone who supported Bill Clinton is a bad person. Is that true? That's not whataboutism.

And, if good people can't support alleged racists and rapists, then Hillary Clinton must not be a good person, because she supported a racist.

What's your reason for making the assumption that Animavore thinks Hillary or Bill are good people. Come on, this is about your biases and an inability to think in anything other than black and white terms.

Dude.... alright...

One, he has praised Hillary before. The question was if Hillary could be a good a person if she supported the racist Byrd. If he wants to go on record as saying she is not a good person, that's up to him.

No, it's up to you to stop making ridiculous assumptions and misrepresentations for the purposes of prosecuting your largely empty rhetorical "arguments".

Not reading the rest.

[Forty Two]

I made no assumptions or misrepresentations. His views on Hillary are not relevant to the issue.

The issue is whether a person could be a good person if they support a bad person who is accused of rape or being a racist.

The prime example is Bill Clinton, who has been accused of both racism and rape. Yet, nobody, including Animavore, suggests that having supported or supporting Bill Clinton makes one a bad person. Likewise, with Hillary, she praised a Byrd who is clearly a racist. So the question is, can Hillary be a good person if she supports Byrd?

It doesn't matter what Animavore thinks of Hillary. All he needs to say is that she can be a good person and support Byrd, or she can't be. That's the question posed to him.

I have seen him post pro-Hillary comments on this forum, so the notion that he supported Hillary Clinton is not really arguable. He supported her as a candidate. He stated: "Hillary wasn't a snake oil merchant tapping into the hate, fear, and prejudice of her audience and trying to sell them fast and easy (and incredibly stupid) solutions." If you search his posts for Hillary, you find nothing but positive statements about her, and nothing but negative statements about Trump. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1680946 and http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1680944 - asking if there are any [other] Hillary Supporters here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1679671 Here he wants to see Clinton not only win, but publicly beat up Trump and humiliate him: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1678846 Expressing support for Hillary's policies - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1678038 Expressing that Hillary's health issues don't affect her mental faculties -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1678001 - posting pro-Hillary cartoons - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1677808 Here he is telling Trump supporters that their candidate is defeated and they must "accept it like a man..." LOL (that's rather an interesting take... I guess when Hillary actually lost, the "accept it like a man" rule went by the wayside, like Hillary's "accept the results of the election no matter what..." mantra). http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1673392 Expressing the view that supporting Hillary Clinton is what makes sense -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1672367 Suck it, Trump supporting idiots! Says animavore when the polls show his favorite girl, Hillary, in the lead: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1672361 Saying Hillary defeated Trump in a debate: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1661074 Literally stating that he wants Hillary to win so the Democrats stay in power - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1658274 Here he is celebrating a Fox News piece exhorting Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1656107 Here he is not only supporting Hillary, but suggesting that the Republican Party should be shut down. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... y#p1645334

[Scot Dutchy]

Just shut it 42. Nobody is listening.

[pErvinalia]

I made no assumptions or misrepresentations. His views on Hillary are not relevant to the issue.

The issue is whether a person could be a good person if they support a bad person who is accused of rape or being a racist.

The prime example is Bill Clinton, who has been accused of both racism and rape. Yet, nobody, including Animavore, suggests that having supported or supporting Bill Clinton makes one a bad person. Likewise, with Hillary, she praised a Byrd who is clearly a racist. So the question is, can Hillary be a good person if she supports Byrd?

Why is that relevant if no one here thinks Hillary or Bill are good people?

Not reading the rest. Favouring Hillary over Trump doesn't mean he thinks Hillary is a good person. It's favouring the lesser of two evils. But I'll await to hear what he says. You might be right in that he thinks Hillary is a good person. Personally I think she is the embodiment* of everything that is wrong in politics today

*other than every conservative, that is.

[mistermack]

The racist vote swung it for Donald. That's an absolute fact.

That discounts the number of racists in the Democrat party. Overall, racism is fairly low in the US. There are racists, of course, in varying degrees. But, for the most part, the US culture is that of equal opportunity, and non-discrimination based on race. But, anyone who has spent time in blue collar land, which tend to vote blue, they know that there is some racism voting Democrat, too.

When Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for President, they called themselves "Sons of the New South" in their election material, and they used the Confederate flag in their advertising. Did they appeal to racists? Some, yes.

Yeh, but Donald Trump managed to poach a lot of those racist democrat votes.
That's what swung it for him in a tight race.
That's what the wall was all about.

[Scot Dutchy]

The racist vote swung it for Donald. That's an absolute fact.

That discounts the number of racists in the Democrat party. Overall, racism is fairly low in the US. There are racists, of course, in varying degrees. But, for the most part, the US culture is that of equal opportunity, and non-discrimination based on race. But, anyone who has spent time in blue collar land, which tend to vote blue, they know that there is some racism voting Democrat, too.

When Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for President, they called themselves "Sons of the New South" in their election material, and they used the Confederate flag in their advertising. Did they appeal to racists? Some, yes.

Yeh, but Donald Trump managed to poach a lot of those racist democrat votes.
That's what swung it for him in a tight race.
That's what the wall was all about.

He did not. His Russian friends did it.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

The racist vote swung it for Donald. That's an absolute fact.

That discounts the number of racists in the Democrat party. Overall, racism is fairly low in the US. There are racists, of course, in varying degrees. But, for the most part, the US culture is that of equal opportunity, and non-discrimination based on race. But, anyone who has spent time in blue collar land, which tend to vote blue, they know that there is some racism voting Democrat, too.

When Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for President, they called themselves "Sons of the New South" in their election material, and they used the Confederate flag in their advertising. Did they appeal to racists? Some, yes.

Yeh, but Donald Trump managed to poach a lot of those racist democrat votes.
That's what swung it for him in a tight race.
That's what the wall was all about.

I think that's an oversimplification, because what he won in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania was the middle class and working class white person. These are not generally racists. They were people who have seen neither party representing their interests for the pats thirty years, and they saw Trump as an outsider coming in with a business background and a non-political background. They were willing to see past his indelicacies and his lack of political skills to what they hoped for - positive economic change. I think the idea that Trump voters were shooting themselves in the economic foot so that they could stick it to the darkies is a message Trump opponents want to create and foster, but it's not what I see going on in the real world.

[mistermack]

think the idea that Trump voters were shooting themselves in the economic foot so that they could stick it to the darkies is a message Trump opponents want to create and foster, but it's not what I see going on in the real world.

In the real world, the racist segment of the USA electorate had a choice between Hilary and Donald.

[Svartalf]

OK, I give up, this is the eternal political tussle ... this thread is officially pronounced dead by derailment.