Trump Staff Assaults Breitbart Reporter

[The Atheist]

I'm the only one with evidence lol. I posted the video of Michelle Fields and you guys ignore it.

There's no more racism among Trump's followers than among any other candidate. In fact, according to one poll I've seen recently (I'll link to it if someone cares to see), the Dems are far more racist than the Republicans.

But all of this is irrelevant. Trump hasn't said or done anything racist. He's certainly not like Obama, who called his grandmother a "typical white woman." And remember that time when Obama joked about his bowling skills being comparable to an athlete in the Special Olympics?

Am I justified in saying that at least some of the violent protestors at Trump rallies are communists? I mean, I have proof, but will it be ignored like the video I showed?



Oh, and Comrade Billy Ayers made some interesting remarks about the protestors' techniques recently, which I'm sure you're all aware of.

[TomFoolery]

I'm the only one with evidence lol. I posted the video of Michelle Fields and you guys ignore it.

No, you are not the only one with evidence. We've all posted plenty and you're ignoring it.

Just because you post things and claim it's evidence doesn't make it good evidence. Look, here's evidence that vaccines are dangerous:

And you and I may both "understand" a thing and still have completely different views on it.  I've never bought the right's "I have a black friend" defense, later changed to the "I have a gay friend" defense, and I'm not buying the "I'm not white so you can't speak to me about racism" excuse for how you KNOW that Trump isn't racist and I can't possibly argue against that.  It's a dishonest argument that does absolutely nothing to further a conversation and those has no place in intelligent discourse.

It's funny you mention this, because Trump himself is often guilty of this. He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, and claims "it's cool" because, "I have Muslim friends and they're wonderful people. But there's a tremendous section and cross-section of Muslims living in our country who have tremendous animosity."

But I'm sure the The Atheist will find some way to dismiss that too.

[The Atheist]

You are a little difficult to figure out.  I watched the video.  From 4 different sources.  I don't see anything in it.  There are a whole lot of people between the camera and the action and everything and everyone is moving.  As far as I can see there is no "proof" of anything in that video, for or against.

As for "illegal immigrants" and "Muslims" not being races, you are technically correct, but you have to delete all context in order to be technically correct.  It is, after all, illegal immigrants "from Mexico" that are being specifically addressed.  And it is Muslims "from Syria" who are the focus of attention.  You are an atheist, so I want to believe you are intelligent, but you have this right-wing "us vs them, if my guy does something wrong it's okay as long as I can prove their guy did something wrong" mentality that's just, if you'll pardon my frankness, retarded.  I don't care what "Hillary" may or may not have done when the conversation is about "Trump".  It is irrelevant.  Do I trust Hillary?  I'm not a moron.  I don't trust anyone interested in politics.  As far as I'm concerned for the most part it takes a special kind of slime ball to even want to get into politics, usually the same kind that wants to be a lawyer.  But that is irrelevant.  How I feel about Hillary, like, dislike or a little of each, is utterly irrelevant in a conversation about Trump.

It is plain as day that Trump has made outright racist statements.  It is plain as day that deporting "illegal immigrants" translate directly into "Get rid of all the Mexicans" (No, Mr. Garrison, we can not get rid of all the Mexicans.)  It is plain as day that when he says "Islam hates us" the "us" in that is Americans and the "Islam" in that is "not Americans".  I can think of only one other way to describe this besides racism, and that's xenophobia.  Are you saying he's not racist, he's xenophobic?  What trait would YOU say describes this vitriol?

As for playing the "race card", come on.  I thought that was something the right accused "liberals" of doing.  You don't automatically have a greater understanding of racism because you're Japanese.  I'm not saying you haven't faced racism.  I'm sure you have.  But I've faced racism against me, too, believe it or not.  Not much, not often, but I, a white guy, have been the victim of racism.  I can say from my firsthand knowledge of the subject, it sucked.  But "experience" and "understanding" are not the same.  I can have "understanding" of something I've never "experienced".  Likewise it is possible that I don't "understand" something I have "experienced".  And you and I may both "understand" a thing and still have completely different views on it.  I've never bought the right's "I have a black friend" defense, later changed to the "I have a gay friend" defense, and I'm not buying the "I'm not white so you can't speak to me about racism" excuse for how you KNOW that Trump isn't racist and I can't possibly argue against that.  It's a dishonest argument that does absolutely nothing to further a conversation and those has no place in intelligent discourse.

No offense, but your speech sounds like something from the Hallmark Channel. It also reeks of smug arrogance. ("You're atheist, so I want to believe you're intelligent....")

Of course the illegal immigration problem is focused on Hispanics; this is where most of our illegals come from. Not hard to figure that one out. In my area, there is a small but significant illegal East European community. I don't recall any liberals sympathizing when the gubment cracked down on them, but Zeus forbid we touch someone with brown skin.

It seems like liberals have a tough time with logic. It does not follow that, because racists support detaining illegal immigrants, therefore "all people who want to detain illegal immigrants are racist." Two individuals can have the same goal for different reasons. Must of us who want to crack down on illegal immigration simply want to protect the economy. We're not the battered women's shelter of the world; we can't give amnesty to illegals just because "there are so many and I feel so bad omg." We need to be firm, and we need to tell future illegals that they won't be able to take advantage of us anymore.

Regarding refugees, have you seen what's going on in Europe? We can't afford to be politically correct. We ought to follow Japan's example when it comes to refugees: Stay the hell away.

[widdershins]

I'm the only one with evidence lol. I posted the video of Michelle Fields and you guys ignore it.

That is blatantly not true.  Just skimming most of it I've seen the transcript.  And the video doesn't really show much except a lot of people blocking the supposed attack.

There's no more racism among Trump's followers than among any other candidate. In fact, according to one poll I've seen recently (I'll link to it if someone cares to see), the Dems are far more racist than the Republicans.

Here you go again trying to defend your position by attacking another.  And yes, I would like to see your right-wing propaganda likely misquoted by Faux News.

But all of this is irrelevant. Trump hasn't said or done anything racist. He's certainly not like Obama, who called his grandmother a "typical white woman." And remember that time when Obama joked about his bowling skills being comparable to an athlete in the Special Olympics?

How is any of that racist?  He's half white.  How can a white guy be racist by making a joke about whites?  And by your own argument, what "race" are people in the Special Olympics?  Was it a gaffe?  Yes.  Was it a dick thing to say?  Yes.  But why bring it up on a conversation about racism?  Because you are desperate to attack the "other side" rather than defend your own.  This is the most perplexing thing to me about conservatives.  Every one of you seem to have this "us against them" mentality and a belief in "your guy" which in the religious world would be called "fundamentalism".

Am I justified in saying that at least some of the violent protestors at Trump rallies are communists? I mean, I have proof, but will it be ignored like the video I showed?

If you can prove that, yes.  But you can't eliminate, say, 5% of the group to explain away 100% of the group.  But once again this isn't an argument, it's a detraction.  You are attacking "them" to defend "us".  It's interesting that your every argument seems to come down to this.

Oh, and Comrade Billy Ayers made some interesting remarks about the protestors' techniques recently, which I'm sure you're all aware of.

And you finish once again, not defending Trump, but attacking "Not Trump".  Your mentality here really is fascinating.  You're a fundamentalist conservative and an atheist at the same time.  You're an atheist to whom critical thinking appears to be a foreign concept.  I would love to hear your back story, what your religious beliefs are, how you became an atheist, etc.  Because I'd bet dollars to donuts it's nothing like mine.

[widdershins]

No offense, but your speech sounds like something from the Hallmark Channel. It also reeks of smug arrogance. ("You're atheist, so I want to believe you're intelligent....")

Start with an attack on anyone not for Trump.  Expected.  And yes, I'm a little smug and arrogant.  I'm talking to a Trump supporter.  I'm sorry, but that does tend to make one feel superior.  It would be the way you would talk to me if you found I was a supporter of the Japanese internment camps of the 1940s.  You would by default, and rightly so, feel that you were in a vastly superior position and, thus, vastly more reasoned/intelligent.  I'm sorry, but I automatically associate "Trump supporter" with "moron".  It's automatic in my head.  If you don't like it, start having an intelligent, honest conversation and make me see a Trump supporter differently.

Of course the illegal immigration problem is focused on Hispanics; this is where most of our illegals come from. Not hard to figure that one out. In my area, there is a small but significant illegal East European community. I don't recall any liberals sympathizing when the gubment cracked down on them, but Zeus forbid we touch someone with brown skin.

Attack liberals for crying about this, but not that.  Another attack rather than defense.  This really is fascinating.

It seems like liberals have a tough time with logic. It does not follow that, because racists support detaining illegal immigrants, therefore "all people who want to detain illegal immigrants are racist." Two individuals can have the same goal for different reasons. Must of us who want to crack down on illegal immigration simply want to protect the economy. We're not the battered women's shelter of the world; we can't give amnesty to illegals just because "there are so many and I feel so bad omg." We need to be firm, and we need to tell future illegals that they won't be able to take advantage of us anymore.

Attack liberals.  Typical of most conservatives these days, but nothing "special" like some of your other arguments (well, not really "arguments".  You are making no "arguments", just attacking anything and everything "Not Trump").  Finally there was an argument there, though one which has been soundly refuted.  Getting rid of all the Mexicans would be devastating to our economy, not a boon to it.  At least, that's what economists are saying.  I can either take their word for it or get a degree as an (bleh) economist.  I think I'll take their word for it.

Regarding refugees, have you seen what's going on in Europe? We can't afford to be politically correct. We ought to follow Japan's example when it comes to refugees: Stay the hell away.

No attack in that paragraph.  I'm almost disappointed.  You had such a pattern going there.  Well, sort of with "the harm that's going on in Europe", but I don't think that really counts as "an attack".

While you didn't really answer my question, from what you said it appears obvious you see Trump as xenophobic (your own view) rather than racist.  I think one can fairly make the claim of xenophobia over racism.  I certainly can't prove racism over xenophobia.  A fair case can be made for either.  So far as I can see, though, no case can be made for neither.

[Shiranu]

We ought to follow Japan's example when it comes to refugees: Stay the hell away.

If you are going to take pride in your Japanese heritage, at least have the slightest clue about what the Japanese are actually doing.

http://www.snopes.com/muslims-in-japan/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/17/viral-image/viral-graphic-says-japan-keeps-out-radical-islam-t/

Lying about the actions of your people because you are too ignorant or dishonest to fit your own political agenda shows how much you really care about the Japanese. You are only Japanese when it is politically expedient to play that card, but you don't give a shit about them when they don't play along with your agenda and stereotype, now do you?

[The Atheist]

No, you are not the only one with evidence. We've all posted plenty and you're ignoring it.

Just because you post things and claim it's evidence doesn't make it good evidence. Look, here's evidence that vaccines are dangerous:

It's funny you mention this, because Trump himself is often guilty of this. He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, and claims "it's cool" because, "I have Muslim friends and they're wonderful people. But there's a tremendous section and cross-section of Muslims living in our country who have tremendous animosity."

But I'm sure the The Atheist will find some way to dismiss that too.

It's frustrating when Bill Maher and other anti-vaccine nuts have such a loud voice, but their folly is irrelevant.

Anyway, do not we have the right as a nation to forbid Muslims from emigrating here? A person freely chooses to be Muslim, and Islam is incompatible with western values. It's no different than barring someone for being a member of, say, ISIS.

But even Trump's silliness is irrelevant. A president Trump wouldn't have to power to do such a thing, and Trump supporters who've been interviewed tend to view such comments as an embarrassment.

People support Trump because his populist message of "America first" resonates. There are some wackos who like the wacky stuff he says, but why is Trump singled out for this? The message Trump sends is that we don't need to be "ashamed" of America, nor should we continue taking it up the ass from the rest of the world.

[PopeyesPappy]

What I find sadly funny about Trump is the same people that have been screaming about their loss of personal freedom for the past 7 years are the ones supporting the authoritarian fascist's run for the presidency.

[widdershins]

It's frustrating when Bill Maher and other anti-vaccine nuts have such a loud voice, but their folly is irrelevant.

Anyway, do not we have the right as a nation to forbid Muslims from emigrating here? A person freely chooses to be Muslim, and Islam is incompatible with western values. It's no different than barring someone for being a member of, say, ISIS.

No, we DO NOT have that right.  Ever heard of the "First Amendment"?  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Yes, there really are amendments to the Constitution which are not the Second Amendment.  The "making a law" barring "the free exercise" of Islam is unconstitutional.  Making a law barring members of a terrorist organization is not.  Don't you right-wingers carry a copy of the Constitution around with you everywhere?  Read the damned thing!

And SOME VERSIONS of Islam are incompatible with "western values", but so are some versions of Christianity.  Islam, like Christianity, is not one religion with one set of beliefs.  There are many "westernized Muslims", including many female women's rights activists, who very much embrace "western values".  It is VERY DIFFERENT than barring someone who is a member of ISIS because the Constitution does not lay out a freedom to be a member of ISIS.

People support Trump because his populist message of "America first" resonates. There are some wackos who like the wacky stuff he says, but why is Trump singled out for this? The message Trump sends is that we don't need to be "ashamed" of America, nor should we continue taking it up the ass from the rest of the world.

People support Trump because he's blaming all their problems on the Mexicans and the Muslims, and America has no shortage of problems these days.  He's giving them a target for their anger and frustration.  People who already mistrust Mexicans and Muslims (Man, I wish there was a name for a group of people who mistrusted people of another race.  If there was I could use it here!) are more than happy to accept that target as accurate.

This really is a new low for you.  Maybe you've said things this stupid before and I just didn't see it, and I'm sorry for feeling the need to outright call you out on it, but this is STUPID.  If you think barring someone based on their religion is no different than barring known terrorists, you are a fucking moron.  And I try really, really hard to never be that offensive to someone, but that was just a plain fucking dumb-shit thing to say.

[TomFoolery]

What I find sadly funny about Trump is the same people that have been screaming about their loss of personal freedom for the past 7 years are the ones supporting the authoritarian fascist's run for the presidency.

Now now, historians have chimed in and all agreed he's not entirely fascist. He's not like on Hitler's level. He's only about half fascist, illustrating only about 8 out of 14 criteria which include: a cult of action, a celebration of aggressive masculinity, an intolerance of criticism, a fear of difference and outsiders, a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class, an intense nationalism and resentment at national humiliation, contempt for the weak, and a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”

Fascist is such a polarizing word and I think it turns a lot of people off when it's tossed around to the point of banality. Rather than just hurl blanket statements at the man, it's more important to understand why his proto-fascist ideology is selling like hotcakes in America, and it has more to do with frustrations over our political system and the failure of our leaders than most people actually believing Donald Trump would make a good president.

In short, conservatives are hurting for a cure to an ulcerated limb, and Donald Trump is the rusty saw coming to save the day amid a crowd of other conservative politicians who are only offering aspirin. After all, what's better than Civil War style solutions during a civil crisis?

[The Atheist]

That is blatantly not true.  Just skimming most of it I've seen the transcript.  And the video doesn't really show much except a lot of people blocking the supposed attack.

All I need to see is the video to know that Michelle Fields is whining about a non-event. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here you go again trying to defend your position by attacking another.  And yes, I would like to see your right-wing propaganda likely misquoted by Faux News.

The poll? Sure.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQh8Gv0cPLAhUKWz4KHfyMBXoQqQIIHCgAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2016%2F02%2F26%2Ftrump-racist-poll-slavery-yougov-economist-upshot-column%2F80986474%2F&usg=AFQjCNGce9FF-l29tyTgg_sbvmRQm2d7jQ&sig2=Vzx2P9wWbpGll8rY1iqvbg

I'm "attacking" as a means of showing the hypocrisy. I agree that Trump says nasty things and I have no intention to defend said things, but my point is that the guys whom you presumably support are just as bad, if not worse. In other words, why are you calling the kettle black?

How is any of that racist?  He's half white.

So, by your logic, Trump can't hate Muslims if he "has Muslims friends."

How can a white guy be racist by making a joke about whites?

Same way I can be racist by making a joke about whites.

And do you ever notice how Obama sounds "blacker" when he's talking to predominantly black crowds?

And by your own argument, what "race" are people in the Special Olympics?  Was it a gaffe?  Yes.  Was it a dick thing to say?  Yes.  But why bring it up on a conversation about racism?  Because you are desperate to attack the "other side" rather than defend your own.  This is the most perplexing thing to me about conservatives.  Every one of you seem to have this "us against them" mentality and a belief in "your guy" which in the religious world would be called "fundamentalism".

Huh. Well, again, the point I'm trying to make is that it's unfair to call the kettle black.

If you can prove that, yes.  But you can't eliminate, say, 5% of the group to explain away 100% of the group.

Thank you! Now apply your same logic to Trump supporters when you accuse us all of being "n_gger-hanging racists."

But once again this isn't an argument, it's a detraction.  You are attacking "them" to defend "us".  It's interesting that your every argument seems to come down to this.

*Takes slow breath* Again, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy.

And you finish once again, not defending Trump, but attacking "Not Trump".  Your mentality here really is fascinating.  You're a fundamentalist conservative and an atheist at the same time.  You're an atheist to whom critical thinking appears to be a foreign concept.  I would love to hear your back story, what your religious beliefs are, how you became an atheist, etc.  Because I'd bet dollars to donuts it's nothing like mine.

Nope. Just calling out hypocrisy.

[TomFoolery]

And I just saw this in my Facebook feed and will leave it here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/if-trump-is-not-elected-then?z=23423423&bffbmain&utm_term=.bgb0MYq16#.xprMRvBpY

A few excerpts to what Trump supporters think will happen if Trump isn't elected:

You would think that it would have happened by now if it was going to, but sure, let's hold Trump up as the fulcrum on which our American way of life currently balances.


A logical conclusion. When we had slavery we didn't have the problems that we have today, therefore...? We should go back to owning slaves? We didn't have problems before? We need a time machine to so Trump can go back in time and kill Abraham Lincoln? Actually, I'm not sure what the logical conclusion is supposed to be here.


Seems legit, though you would think if God will only smite us AFTER not voting for Trump that the guy probably hasn't been paying attention.


Yes, much like a boil on my ass, communism will form. I'm assuming this guy doesn't know the difference between communism and socialism because I'm having a difficult time imaging the U.S. being full-on Communist circa Soviet Union, but whatever.

Congratulations, The Atheist, you're with these people. :) *slow clap*

[The Atheist]

No, we DO NOT have that right.  Ever heard of the "First Amendment"?  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Um, a sovereign nation has the right to bar anyone from emigrating to our nation for any reason whatsoever. This has nothing to do with prohibiting religious freedom.

Yes, there really are amendments to the Constitution which are not the Second Amendment.

Indeed, there are. Isn't it funny how liberals cherry-pick the Constitution?

The "making a law" barring "the free exercise" of Islam is unconstitutional.

Couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with denying foreign Muslims citizenship based on their religion.

And SOME VERSIONS of Islam are incompatible with "western values", but so are some versions of Christianity.  Islam, like Christianity, is not one religion with one set of beliefs.  There are many "westernized Muslims", including many female women's rights activists, who very much embrace "western values".  It is VERY DIFFERENT than barring someone who is a member of ISIS because the Constitution does not lay out a freedom to be a member of ISIS.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, not all religions are equal, and the "moderate" Muslims are simply those who don't fully follow Mohammed's teachings.

Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, but I don't like you Christians." If more Christians were more Christ-like, we can all agree that the world would be a better place. But if more Muslims were more Mohammed-like, well . . . Mohammed advocated beheading "unrepentant infidels" (i.e., those who refused to convert to Islam). Ask any Muslim what Mohammed taught should be done about apostates from the Muslim faith.

Not. All. Religions. Are. Equal.

People support Trump because he's blaming all their problems on the Mexicans and the Muslims, and America has no shortage of problems these days.

Oh, hm. Please tell me other stuff about me, since you seem to know me better than I do.

He's giving them a target for their anger and frustration.  People who already mistrust Mexicans and Muslims (Man, I wish there was a name for a group of people who mistrusted people of another race.  If there was I could use it here!) are more than happy to accept that target as accurate.

You'll find this subset of people in both parties. Why single out the minority of racists on the right? It seems you seek confirmation bias.

This really is a new low for you.  Maybe you've said things this stupid before and I just didn't see it, and I'm sorry for feeling the need to outright call you out on it, but this is STUPID.  If you think barring someone based on their religion is no different than barring known terrorists, you are a fucking moron.

I'm a "f*cking moron." Ok, tough guy.

Now that you've got the personal attack out of your system, let's fact-focus.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sections 212 and 313, specifically), an individual can be denied citizenship if he or she pledges allegiance to a faith which demands obedience to any law over the US Constitution. Ever heard of Sharia law? Look up polls that show just how many Muslims in the US support Sharia law superseding US law.

[widdershins]

All I need to see is the video to know that Michelle Fields is whining about a non-event. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I watched the video.  I didn't see anything.  You certainly don't get a clear shot to see if she was grabbed hard enough to leave a bruise or not.

The poll? Sure.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQh8Gv0cPLAhUKWz4KHfyMBXoQqQIIHCgAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2016%2F02%2F26%2Ftrump-racist-poll-slavery-yougov-economist-upshot-column%2F80986474%2F&usg=AFQjCNGce9FF-l29tyTgg_sbvmRQm2d7jQ&sig2=Vzx2P9wWbpGll8rY1iqvbg

Your claim:

In fact, according to one poll I've seen recently (I'll link to it if someone cares to see), the Dems are far more racist than the Republicans.

The story you linked to:

According to the poll, backers of Clinton and Sanders, white Democrats, are more likely to disapprove of the Civil-War executive order than supporters of Hispanic Republican Marco Rubio.

Already we've gone from "Democrats" vs "Republicans" to "Democrats in South Carolina who back Clinton and Sanders" vs "Supporters of Marco Rubio" and from "are racist" to "support the Emancipation Proclamation" without context.  You've already taken a leap of faith and fallen off the cliff.  But let's wait for the splat, shall we?  The poll results:

Support for Emancipation Proclamation
“Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order which ... freed all slaves
in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government?”
                 Approve   Disapprove   Not Sure   N
Among supporters of ...
Trump       66.5%       20.5%          13.0%      419
Cruz         74.0          15.1              10.8        149
Sanders   81.5            9.8                 8.7        589
Carson     70.6            8.9               20.5          93
Clinton     85.3            6.2                8.5         507
Rubio       86.1            5.1                8.8         128
Kasich      92.2           3.2                 4.6          98

The REALITY is that what the poll you saw said was NOT that Democrats are "far more racist" than Republicans, as you claimed, but that that Cruz supporters are AT LEAST 50% more racist than supporters of any other candidate than Trump, whose supporters are 33% more racist than Cruz supporters.

Do you even read this shit?  You gave me the link and everything.  It is way, way too easy to shoot down your "facts" as the bullshit they are.

I'm "attacking" as a means of showing the hypocrisy. I agree that Trump says nasty things and I have no intention to defend said things, but my point is that the guys whom you presumably support are just as bad, if not worse. In other words, why are you calling the kettle black?

Well, since Trump supporters are at least TWICE as racist as supporters of literally anyone else but Cruz (thank you for pointing that out), I think I'll go with the "Not Racist" party.

So, by your logic, Trump can't hate Muslims if he "has Muslims friends."

You missed the point.  That's the excuse Republicans use to prove they're not racists or homophobic.  It doesn't prove anything except in their heads.

Same way I can be racist by making a joke about whites.

Are you white?  If you are not, then yes, you can be racist about making jokes about whites.  If you are, then no.  You can't be racist by making a racial joke about yourself.

And do you ever notice how Obama sounds "blacker" when he's talking to predominantly black crowds?

Welcome to politics.  They're all clones.  This is not news.

Huh. Well, again, the point I'm trying to make is that it's unfair to call the kettle black.

Unfair, maybe.  But he doesn't mind.  Just don't call that kettle a fucking Mexican!

Thank you! Now apply your same logic to Trump supporters when you accuse us all of being "n_gger-hanging racists."

I made no such accusation.

*Takes slow breath* Again, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy.

Then make an argument in support of your position already.

[The Atheist]

...a cult of action...

True of every politician.

...a celebration of aggressive masculinity...

I guess Reagan was a fascist then. And Eisenhower. Hm, maybe Ernest Hemingway was too, because muscles and balls.

...an intolerance of criticism...

This is true of every politician, as well. Need I remind you of Obama?

...a fear of difference and outsiders...

Liberals have a hard time differentiating between illegal and legal immigration. I'm proud of the fact that our country legally welcomes more immigrants annually than any other nation.

Illegals got to go. Maybe we ought to be as tough on illegals as most other nations are.

...a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class...

Every. Presidential. Candidate. Ever.

...an intense nationalism...

Liberals hate the idea of American Exceptionalism. What else is new?

...and resentment at national humiliation...

You're damn right I'm resentful at how Obama has humiliated our nation.

...contempt for the weak...

Huh? Have you every heard the expression, "If you give a man a fish, he'll have dinner for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, he'll have dinner for life"?

Democrats promise to keep giving fish. Republicans want to teach you how to fish.

...and a “popular elitism”...

What wrong with being populist?

...that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”

So much self-hatred for America.