Englebert

I'm not clear on your point here. That is a whole separate argument.

No, I'm not kidding you. What part of my post makes you think I was joking? This might be your whole problem. Sounds to me like you try to read things that aren't there. Kind of like the media keeps saying Trump is racist because he wants to put a temporary halt on Muslims immigrating to this country. You might disagree with him, but it is not racist. And you tried to "make that argument" in another post and I shot it down. Seems prudent that you won't try to post that garbage again.

The first link from the Huffington Post has real accusations, including settlements. I couldn't read it because the website kept locking up on me. I will go back and look at that one further. The second link (Washington Post) is just a common hit piece with no substance. I find it hilarious that they are going after Trump for the Birther Movement when it was Hillary's camp that originated it. The third (Slate) is just the same as the second but based only on his "Mexico is sending rapists" remarks. He might not have stated it politically correct but his contention was that the Mexican government is encouraging criminals to migrate to the U.S. just as Cuba did when they emptied their prisons. That is in no way a racist remark. He never accused all Mexican illegal immigrants as being rapists. The fourth (CNN) is just about Paul Ryan disavowing Trump's remarks. Trump was complaining about the judge in one of his cases being biased against him. He implied that the Judge was biased due to his Mexican heritage. After how the media is portraying Trump as hateful towards Mexicans, I can see where he would feel that a judge of Mexican heritage would not give him a fair trial. Minorities bring up this same issue on a daily basis.

The media keeps saying that Trump is a racist, as you have here. Can you point to or show any racist statement Trump has made?

What's the problem? That list tries to imply that the things he said were racist or misogynistic, when in fact most are not at all. Let's go through them shall we. 1. The 'total and complete shutdown' of Muslims entering the U.S. He is suggesting a temporary ban a Muslims entering the U.S. until we can determine which are radical terrorists and which are not. Sounds prudent. If I gave you a bowl of grapes and two of them were filled with cyanide, are you going to eat any of the grapes? No. Sounds to me like you hate all grapes. 2. 'I'm a negotiator like you folks' He did use a stereotype, but not a negative one. If he said blacks are great athletes would you be offended? A polished politician tries to avoid stereotypes, but he is not polished, and it wasn't negative. 3. 'the blacks' What's offensive? 4. 'I am the least racist person there is' Again, what's offensive? 5. 'Laziness is a trait in blacks' This is according to Rosie O'Donnell, and I don't believe anything Rosie O'Donnell has to say. 6. 'a well-educated black' Trump remarked, "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market." This is true because of Affirmative Action. You can argue that "racist whites control the system and will not hire blacks" and I will argue that "greedy people control the system and will hire whoever will make them the most money". Affirmative Action gives an advantage to a qualified black candidate over an equally qualified white candidate. 7. 'They're rapists ... some, I assume, are good people' He was saying that the Mexican government was encouraging all of their criminals to migrate to the U.S., akin to Cuba emptying their prisons and encouraging them to migrate to the U.S. The "some, I assume, are good people" meant that mixed in with the criminals that the Mexican government was encouraging to migrate were good hard-working Mexicans looking for a better life in the U.S. Trump is not a polished politician, and he could and should have stated this better. But it is not racist. 8. 'I have thousands of Hispanics that work for me' He just pointed out that he hires thousands of Hispanics. What's the problem? 9. No bones about it Again, what's the problem? 10. 'the Japs' Hey, he used a derogatory term. I grew up a few miles from Jap Road in LaBelle. I never even heard of that term being derogatory until the County changed the name due to political correctness. It's still difficult for me to believe it's derogatory because it just a shortened word. I would not be offended if a Japanese person called me Tex. I would be offended if they called me Yank, or even Yankee. I don't want to be associated with anyone from the northeast. So, all the way down to number ten on the list we have one. I wonder if he was eating dog while smoking a doobie with the Choom gang when he said this. 11. On how to treat women It's his opinion that women respond positively to a man exerting dominance over a woman. Many women do. Many women don't. Does he still feel this way? After all, that article was published 24 years ago, at a time when Obama and Hillary were all for "marriage is between a man and a woman". 12. 'I cherish women' This conflicts with his views in number 11 above. Trump is trying to garner support from women, akin to Hillary speaking at a NAACP event and channeling her inner Ebonics. Or when she speaks in the South and her southern drawl mysteriously reappears. And Trump has been out front in hiring women in managerial positions, something he has every right to brag about. Something Hillary cannot brag about. 13. Rosie O'Donnell, Bette Midler, Arianna Huffington ... When you hurl personal attacks at Trump, be prepared for him to hurl them right back. What's the problem? 14. 'When a man leaves a woman' I don't know what he's trying to say here. Please explain to me why this is racist or derogatory, and include who is supposed to be offended. 15. Golf and marriage Again, I'm not sure what he's trying to say. But if the word "gay" is in the quote, someone must be offended. Please explain. I'm not a Trump fan, but my God, is this all the left has? Only one item on the list deals with policies issues. I find it hypocritical for the left to hold Bill Clinton in high regard then read this hit piece and think Trump is unfit to hold office. But this is so typical of the left.

One more question, if someone is on the Terrorist Watch List, shouldn't FBI agents be able to have surprise raids/inspections without a warrant on any of their houses? After all, if we can arbitrarily stripped their second amendment rights, shouldn't we be able to stripped any and all of their rights?

If Congress passes a bill to ban citizens on the Terrorist Watch List from owing guns, how long do you think it will take before Clive Bundy and family will be stripped of their guns?

Let's compare the number of black people that have hanged themselves versus the number of black people that have been hanged by cops in the last 50 years. I'm afraid the numbers will not support you theory.

When I first saw this, all I could think of is "Who is gonna be the first to be offended?" I think a lot of people, when watching this, were thinking; "Can I get offended by this?" I have a feeling somebody somewhere is fuming...they don't know why they are offended, but they are.

I think a lot of chiropractors might be pissed that you elevated Hillary to their status, but I see your point.

No, believe me, they are idiots. I blend right in with them.

We could put him up against George Soros.

I've been around drunk people with guns all of my life. I've been around them when they have gotten into fist fights. I've been around them when they have gotten into shouting arguments. Not one time has any drunk or sober person pointed a gun at another. Not one time has a person even went and got a gun. If you are around drunk people that are pulling guns on each other, you might want to find a new place to hang out. The argument that drunk idiots will pull guns on each other has never happened around me, and there's been thousands of opportunities for it to happen.

As defective as he is, the other choice is way worse.

The left considers a bunch of Tea Party people shouting as "descending into violent mayhem". When the left wing protesters actually attack people and destroy property, then that's just "Americans exercising the right to protest". The hypocrisy on the left is undeniable when it comes to protester violence and destruction.

That's the domain of the left. When Obama lands on your property he will just write an executive order giving him a free pass. He would then tax all of your properties and give your riches to his donators. I've seen a lot of this talk about Republicans leaders wanting to bend and break the rules to deny Trump the nomination. The fact is nothing has been done. It's seems to be all talk from some sore losers.

I know, just wanted to get a jab in at Obama. I wasn't on this board before Obama. In fact, I paid very little attention to politics before Obama. I think I started paying more attention in the last few years of GW. I remember being shocked at the vitriol directed at him by the left wing media.

Wow, you have some tunnel vision goggles then. You never heard about threats and actual acts of violence from the Tea Party. But the Wall Street Occupiers was a cess pool of filth. But the left wing media practically gave them a pass. Bush was attacked way way worse than Obama. There is no comparison. Obama practically gets a free ride from the left wing media, the same media that blamed Bush for everything. And if you don't hear the democratic radio stations complaining about Republicans then you have the volume on mute. Your version of the percentage of hate is the complete opposite of the truth. It's hard to tell if you're just joking around because I find hard to believe that anyone can see the political atmosphere in this country the way you seem to.

Obama definitely gave us plenty to complain about.

The west coast is highly liberal in most of the urban areas and conservative in most of the rural areas. The population of the urban areas outnumbers the population of the rural areas, but there is a dichotomy. Middle America also has the same type of dichotomy with urban areas being liberal and rural areas being conservative. The east coast is highly liberal in the urban areas, but a lot of the rural areas are also liberal with pockets of conservatives. That's why I posed both questions in the same thread. If you try to look at just rural vs urban in the west coast or middle, any drawn conclusions fail measurably when applied to the east coast. And vice versa. Another thing, these differences have not remained stable over time. Some cities that were at one time highly conservative and experienced population growth changed to liberal in short order. Some cities did not. Most cities that were liberal and experienced population decline however did not change to conservative. Some rural areas have flip-flopped with little or no population growth. I have a feeling that both the Democrat and Republican parties have spent a lot of money studying this. I also have a feeling that neither has come up with any significant findings.

Hannity and O'Reilly have not been caught or even accused of doctoring tape or flat out lying to the American people. I know the left-wing media sweeps the antics of above mentioned under the rug, but even you has to know that they have purposely lied to American people. You accused Hannity and O'Reilly of making racists remarks on an earlier thread, and I challenged you to provide proof. Proof was never provided. I now challenge you to provide proof where Hannity or O'Reilly has doctored tape or purposely lied to the American public like the other three have done.

Why is liberalism concentrated mostly in populated urban areas and conservatism is mostly concentrated in less populated rural areas? In a separate question, why is liberalism concentrated mostly on the east and west coasts, while conservatism is concentrated mostly in middle America? I have no idea. Well, I have a few unexplored theories. I've read some theories back in college, but none would hold water. Same goes for the few I read recently. I'm just curious as to what theories anybody has.

I have a question. Why do we let terrorists vote? I've been hearing since the Orlando shooting a bunch of the anti-gun nutcases asking "Why do we give terrorists guns?" So if a person is defined as a terrorist, I want to know why we still allow them to vote. I also have been hearing from a bunch of anti-gun elitists saying that we need to ban guns while being surrounded by security. Well my gun is my bodyguard. I can't afford to surround myself will full-time human bodyguards. I want to know why these elitists think they should take my bodyguard but keep theirs. Sorry for the rant, but these anti-gun fruitbags need a good pistol whipping.

Careful Nash, you can ask her a direct question pertinent to the topic and she will refuse to answer then accuse you of "deflection".

If you would have posted it I would have commented. I refuse to get into a childish "debate" with Big Girl. And if these are the best the left has got, y'all don't have much. Trump didn't look into the eyes of grieving parents that had just lost their son in Benghazi and tell them a outright lie. Edit: Sorry Bluedove. I initially read your comment wrong when I responded. I erroneously thought you meant you were waiting for someone to comment. .