Yeah! Don’t vote this November! (If you’re voting for a Democrat)

Not if it means voting for a piece of shit like her that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.

The Dems always convince people they are on the side of good and they don't do jack shit.

We need another party to step in and take over.

Yes. Until then, just let the party of pure evil take over every facet of our lives.

Great plan.

Saying "jack shit" got done in 2008-2010 is being willfully ignorant. Saying there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans is being gleefully blind.

I used to think it was amazing that people of 2016 were willing to repeat the same mistake of 2000. Now here we are announcing that we're going to do it again in 2018.

You know who wants a new party to challenge democrats even more than you? Republicans.

If you honestly thing what Feinstein said here 24 years ago is anywhere close to the shit Republicans said just last week, then I don't know what else to say. Good luck to you?

Ha! And a different version of this video just popped up on my recommended list from a channel called "The GOP War Room".

Ya think there might be a reason they want to spread this around?

hint: it aint because they love her

It's obvious they are in a propaganda war and they are dredging shit up they can hurl at each other. My issue is with people that will protect Dems who say shit like this and excuse it as not racist, but they are totally fine with vilifying and calling out Republicans that do the same shit.

I am sick of all these fake fucker Dems who pretend they aren't racist or pretend like they give a shit. They are almost worse than racist Republicans because at least the GOP admits they don't give a shit about anyone or anything but a hallmark card version of Jesus next to a heaping fat tray of Fuck All.

I live in a state where 2/3 of democrats are set to vote for *the fucking republican* solely because he promised more highway lanes so they don't have to consider taking public transportation with the rest of us filthy plebs.

So you can miss me with that "purity politics" shit because when it comes to horseshit conveniences, centrists clearly have their own purity priorities.

Oops, I meant 1/3.

Reminder that alt-right shitbags really, REALLY don't want you to vote. They will stir up ANY AND ALL SHIT THEY CAN in hopes of discouraging you from voting.

Check out the shit they're spewing here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17979304/midter ms-2018-duncan-hunter-ammar-campa-najjar

They're going to dredge up every old argument they possibly can. They're going to try to turn feminists against the transgendered, Bernies against Hillaries, star-bellied sneetches against the starless.

We won't let them BECAUSE FUCK YOU AND FUCK THE DAMAGE YOUR TRAITOR "PRESIDENT" AND VILE-ASS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAVE ALREADY DONE TO THE REPUBLIC.

Revenge in November.

Reminder that not everybody who refuses the useless dems is "alt-right" or a "russian bot" and that ignoring legitimate criticisms is the most fucking dem shit ever and practically ensures they will never learn or grow beyond the failures of 2016.

Check out the shit they're copy-pasting and screeching constantly here and elsewhere, then ask yourselves if this is a vote-winner and if dem people were truly concerned with 'reaching out to voters' would they in fact be continually expressing the bullshit idea that all who don't pick Dem must be alt-right or some other 'enemy'?

They're going to resort to absolutely the same shit as in 2016, screeching their heads off about Stein, or Bernie or fucking Nader. They're going to ignore that TERFs are not feminists to make some ass-backwards remark about 'turning feminists against the transgendered'.

They will continue doing it "BECAUSE FUCK MORALITY, FUCK ALL THOSE BROWN KIDS DEAD BODIES, TRUMP MUST BE YOUR FAULT NOT OURS, THE SENATE ALSO MUST BE ONLY YOUR FAULT BECAUSE I VOTED HILLARY SOMETHING SOMETHING THE REPUBLIC"

'Revenge' is a great tell on yourselves, and again a huge disincentive for those who might have considered voting dem tactically, but fuck it you want to run your country into the ground some more, you keep fucking that tired old pooch.

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^Yeah this is fucking stupid. Great job spamming though.

Point me to -exactly- where I directed anyone not to vote please, thanks!

Being a good Democrat means supporting candidates that would have been considered Republican 5 years ago, forever.

If a shit sandwich is the only thing on the menu, order it. But, hope to Christ the restaurant closes soon.

That part was definitely clickbait but I couldn't find a copy of this anywhere else. And she sucks.

I want people to see her for who she truly is. She hasn't changed her spots. All she cares about is power and she could give a fuck about Mexican Americans or Mexican immigrants. The woman is a calculating bitch.

"Who she truly is" as a politician requires more argument than just a video from 24 years ago. You may not recall but there was a pretty strong anti-immigrant sentiment in California back in 1994. A charitable reading of Feinstein in this video is that she is being politically strategic to appeal to center/right of center voters.

If you want to show us who she 'really' is you'll need to trudge up her voting record. I'm sympathetic to your general position, but not necessarily for the same reasons, though I can be persuaded. I tend to think Feinstein is just old and out of touch. Like an career politician any idealistic drive she once had has been stamped out by a pragmatism that allows the wealthy and the corporate to push their interests into law.

Reminder that alt-right shitbags really, REALLY don't want you to vote. They will stir up ANY AND ALL SHIT THEY CAN in hopes of discouraging you from voting.

Check out the shit they're spewing here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17979304/midter ms-2018-duncan-hunter-ammar-campa-najjar

They're going to dredge up every old argument they possibly can. They're going to try to turn feminists against the transgendered, Bernies against Hillaries, star-bellied sneetches against the starless.

We won't let them BECAUSE FUCK YOU AND FUCK THE DAMAGE YOUR TRAITOR "PRESIDENT" AND VILE-ASS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAVE ALREADY DONE TO THE REPUBLIC.

Revenge in November.

Reminder that not everybody who refuses the useless dems is "alt-right" or a "russian bot" and that ignoring legitimate criticisms is the most fucking dem shit ever and practically ensures they will never learn or grow beyond the failures of 2016.

Check out the shit they're copy-pasting and screeching constantly here and elsewhere, then ask yourselves if this is a vote-winner and if dem people were truly concerned with 'reaching out to voters' would they in fact be continually expressing the bullshit idea that all who don't pick Dem must be alt-right or some other 'enemy'?

They're going to resort to absolutely the same shit as in 2016, screeching their heads off about Stein, or Bernie or fucking Nader. They're going to ignore that TERFs are not feminists to make some ass-backwards remark about 'turning feminists against the transgendered'.

They will continue doing it "BECAUSE FUCK MORALITY, FUCK ALL THOSE BROWN KIDS DEAD BODIES, TRUMP MUST BE YOUR FAULT NOT OURS, THE SENATE ALSO MUST BE ONLY YOUR FAULT BECAUSE I VOTED HILLARY SOMETHING SOMETHING THE REPUBLIC"

'Revenge' is a great tell on yourselves, and again a huge disincentive for those who might have considered voting dem tactically, but fuck it you want to run your country into the ground some more, you keep fucking that tired old pooch.

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^also spam

this

Exactly, Accidie.

Reminder that alt-right shitbags really, REALLY don't want you to vote. They will stir up ANY AND ALL SHIT THEY CAN in hopes of discouraging you from voting.

Check out the shit they're spewing here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17979304/midter ms-2018-duncan-hunter-ammar-campa-najjar

They're going to dredge up every old argument they possibly can. They're going to try to turn feminists against the transgendered, Bernies against Hillaries, star-bellied sneetches against the starless.

We won't let them BECAUSE FUCK YOU AND FUCK THE DAMAGE YOUR TRAITOR "PRESIDENT" AND VILE-ASS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAVE ALREADY DONE TO THE REPUBLIC.

Revenge in November.

are you saying that the american left needed a reason to be eating itself alive Hazelnut? Because maybe you haven't been paying attention to America since the 1950s.

No, he's now fully down the rabbit-hole of "all criticism of the dems is ENEMY agitprop" conspiracy shit that the dem twitter lunatics have been shilling since 2016.

It couldn't possibly be anything else, nope we are all russian bot alt-righters now because hazelnut is having a nervous breakdown.

за здоровье

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^yet more spam

They never will, meanwhile the militant idiocy of dem supporters will be cranked up to fever pitch and everyone else will once again be at fault for every election result they don't like, forever.

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^is that some spam? Yes, yes it is.

Obama started those camps and Hillary would have continued them and called them daycare centers and Dems would have clapped like the idiot sheep they are.

Horseshit on all counts.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration -separate-families/

"“Previous administrations used family detention facilities, allowing the whole family to stay together while awaiting their deportation case in immigration court, or alternatives to detention, which required families to be tracked but released from custody to await their court date,” Brown and her co-author, Tim O’Shea, wrote in an explainer piece for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s website. “Some children may have been separated from the adults they entered with, in cases where the family relationship could not be established, child trafficking was suspected, or there were not sufficient family detention facilities available. … However, the zero-tolerance policy is the first time that a policy resulting in separation is being applied across the board.”"

But way to repeat what Trump's minions have been saying to defend their concentration camps for children. Again I ask, are you deliberately doing PR work for the Republicans, or are you just that fucking stupid?

Obama 'Don't send your children'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjxay-XeSks

Pepsi or Diet Pepsi. The DLC & the GOP aren't really that different.

Insisting on equivalencies just muddies the water, during a time when clarity is very much needed.

Marlon: "child prisons were also under obama's watch"
Bort: "NO THEY WEREN'T, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE THEY WERE KINDER, GENTLER CHILD PRISONS SO THAT'S FINE"

Add that to the list of things Bort will overlook in -literally any- Dem right next to 'Hillary had slaves in her mansion'

Remember the good ol' days when Obama abused children haha man those were good days

Reminder that alt-right shitbags really, REALLY don't want you to vote. They will stir up ANY AND ALL SHIT THEY CAN in hopes of discouraging you from voting.

Check out the shit they're spewing here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17979304/midter ms-2018-duncan-hunter-ammar-campa-najjar

They're going to dredge up every old argument they possibly can. They're going to try to turn feminists against the transgendered, Bernies against Hillaries, star-bellied sneetches against the starless.

We won't let them BECAUSE FUCK YOU AND FUCK THE DAMAGE YOUR TRAITOR "PRESIDENT" AND VILE-ASS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAVE ALREADY DONE TO THE REPUBLIC.

Revenge in November.

Reminder that not everybody who refuses the useless dems is "alt-right" or a "russian bot" and that ignoring legitimate criticisms is the most fucking dem shit ever and practically ensures they will never learn or grow beyond the failures of 2016.

Check out the shit they're copy-pasting and screeching constantly here and elsewhere, then ask yourselves if this is a vote-winner and if dem people were truly concerned with 'reaching out to voters' would they in fact be continually expressing the bullshit idea that all who don't pick Dem must be alt-right or some other 'enemy'?

They're going to resort to absolutely the same shit as in 2016, screeching their heads off about Stein, or Bernie or fucking Nader. They're going to ignore that TERFs are not feminists to make some ass-backwards remark about 'turning feminists against the transgendered'.

They will continue doing it "BECAUSE FUCK MORALITY, FUCK ALL THOSE BROWN KIDS DEAD BODIES, TRUMP MUST BE YOUR FAULT NOT OURS, THE SENATE ALSO MUST BE ONLY YOUR FAULT BECAUSE I VOTED HILLARY SOMETHING SOMETHING THE REPUBLIC"

'Revenge' is a great tell on yourselves, and again a huge disincentive for those who might have considered voting dem tactically, but fuck it you want to run your country into the ground some more, you keep fucking that tired old pooch.

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^More spam again

Reminder that alt-right shitbags really, REALLY don't want you to vote. They will stir up ANY AND ALL SHIT THEY CAN in hopes of discouraging you from voting.

Check out the shit they're spewing here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17979304/midter ms-2018-duncan-hunter-ammar-campa-najjar

They're going to dredge up every old argument they possibly can. They're going to try to turn feminists against the transgendered, Bernies against Hillaries, star-bellied sneetches against the starless.

We won't let them BECAUSE FUCK YOU AND FUCK THE DAMAGE YOUR TRAITOR "PRESIDENT" AND VILE-ASS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAVE ALREADY DONE TO THE REPUBLIC.

Revenge in November.

Reminder that not everybody who refuses the useless dems is "alt-right" or a "russian bot" and that ignoring legitimate criticisms is the most fucking dem shit ever and practically ensures they will never learn or grow beyond the failures of 2016.

Check out the shit they're copy-pasting and screeching constantly here and elsewhere, then ask yourselves if this is a vote-winner and if dem people were truly concerned with 'reaching out to voters' would they in fact be continually expressing the bullshit idea that all who don't pick Dem must be alt-right or some other 'enemy'?

They're going to resort to absolutely the same shit as in 2016, screeching their heads off about Stein, or Bernie or fucking Nader. They're going to ignore that TERFs are not feminists to make some ass-backwards remark about 'turning feminists against the transgendered'.

They will continue doing it "BECAUSE FUCK MORALITY, FUCK ALL THOSE BROWN KIDS DEAD BODIES, TRUMP MUST BE YOUR FAULT NOT OURS, THE SENATE ALSO MUST BE ONLY YOUR FAULT BECAUSE I VOTED HILLARY SOMETHING SOMETHING THE REPUBLIC"

'Revenge' is a great tell on yourselves, and again a huge disincentive for those who might have considered voting dem tactically, but fuck it you want to run your country into the ground some more, you keep fucking that tired old pooch.

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

^Spam.

"Remember that whole Hillary Clinton "Super-predator" issue that that the Bernie Bitches kept bringing up in 2016. That was 90 per cent bullshit."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

No, it wasn't.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/2 8/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-s u/

Bernie specifically called out Bill Clinton's defence of Hillary using the term, saying (rightly so) that it was a well-known racist dogwhistle even at the time and that the fucking crime bill both Clintons helped make law, actually put far more young black men in prison, so it was racist in terminology and systemically racist in EFFECT.

When the fuck will you people wake up and take goddamn responsibility for the harm Dems have done and still do, whether they 'meant to' or not?

When is that time? Ever?

“I don’t want you to vote in November.”
Bawbag

“Bawbag can eat shit. Go vote!”
Everyone with a shred of decency

"vote Republican this November also I love to drink dog piss"
Hazelnut

"Wow that's fucked up Hazelnut! Why would anyone do either?"
Everyone else, except dog piss drinking republicans.

Bawbag, I've seen this page from politifact befopre, and it baffles me as much now as it did then.

>>>Our ruling

Priebus said Hillary Clinton is "the the one that labeled African-American youth as superpredators."

Clinton — in the midst of championing her husband’s 1994 crime legislation — did use the term "superpredator" when referring to "gangs of kids." She did not specifically label superpredators as African-American, but the context of her speech and her subsequent apology decades later suggests it was a reasonable inference.

It doesn't make sense to me. Politifact says: "She did not specifically label superpredators as African-American,"

Rence Priebus says "She "is the one that labeled African-American youth as ‘superpredators.’"

Politifact says "mostly true."???? Partly because she apologized for having said what she said.

I haven't seen evidence that it was a well-know

Literally dropped off to sleep in the middle of that sentence. The What I haven't senn is evidence that it was "a well-known racist dog whistle". Cenk, Bawbag,
Prebus and Bernie all say so. Politifact doesn't provide evidence. The Cspan video tells me nothing I didn't already know.

What we don't have, to the best of my knowledge, is anyone calling Clinton out in 1994 for using a "Well known racist dog whistle", The whole discussion comes from 2016,

What the new New York Times retro video makes clear is that the term "Super Predator" came from criminologists and social scientists, not political campaigns, which is where racist dogwhistsles come from. It also cites the murder of a black child as an event that influenced the superpredator scare. And the way that the story is its told strongly suggests that racism was used to explain the superpredator narrative after it didn't happen. Which may be true . But that's not a dog whistle. She didn't say that black kids needed to be brought to heel because they were animals. Which is what I kept reading in 2016 tweets.

What I think I am seeing here, and in the Feinstein clip, is a female politician making a point about being "tough on crime". This is what I mean when I talk about female politicians having extra hoops to jump through, and being held extra accountable for them.

Much of the time,"Tough on crime" is a dumb, dangerous destructive myth that often has horrible consequences. In the summer of 1995, there was a story in my local paper about an idiot kid who who was facing a parole violation, killed a young cop, and then himself because he was NOT going back to jail. The same paper had a story about conditions in the jail. Overcrowding and poor ventilation and temperatures above 90 degrees, and someone working at the jail just laughed it off. it off. "We'll get a crowbar if we have to."

A few weeks later, Officer Lee Barta's widow found out she was pregnant.

It was always a racial dogwhistle.

https://www.theroot.com/for-the-record-superpredators-is-absol utely-a-racist-t-1790857020

Really, bawbag? The Root? Couldn't find anything in the Young Turks?

Quoting the author who coined the term doesn't get us any closer to Hillary Clinton implying that black kids are animals, which is the only thing I've been disputing. Racial dog-whistles are a forum of demagoguery. You generally don't have to look them up in books to explain them.

The reason why Hillary was criticized in 2016 and not in 1996 is because the theory hadn't been disproven yet. People believed it, and the racist component wasn't widely understood. What's going to convince me that this was a racist dogwhistle is if reasonable people without an axe to grind thought it was a racist dog whistle in 1996.

I'm all for criticizing the Clinton Crime initiative. That would be areal issue. but that's not what this was. Frankly, it was just a different kind of racial dogwhistle.

What's misleading about this is on full view in the title:

>>>For the Record: 'Superpredators' Is Absolutely a Racist Term

What's misleading is the use of the present tense to discuss something that Hillary Clinton had said twenty years earlier, and that, racist or not, had been discredited, and was no longer believed by anybody, and that Hillary Clinton herself had disavowed, even though somehow, that disavowel was counted in Politifact as a point against her.

This was posted on "The Root" September 30, 2016. The election was about 40 days away. Can we question the value of examining the deeper meaning of something that Hillary Clinton said in 1996 while at the same moment, Trump was hosting his "BUILD THAT WALL" rallies every day? I think we can, but beyond that, can we at least get the goddamn tense right?

I've seen evidence that Hillary Clinton, like a lot of other people (maybe mostly white people), found the superpredator scare to be credible. I'm not going to chase that down, let's just call it a hypothetical.

I can readily believe that a white person born in the 1940s could believe an idea based on racism in the 1990s, and know better in the 2010s, based on my own experience as a white person born in the 1950s. We don't come into the world understanding other people.

I'm trying to make a distinction between racism, the holding or irrational fear of the OTHER, and racist-dog whistling, the conscious exploitation of that fear. I think the distinction is really important.

The Root quotes John DiIulio Jr:

. Violent youth crime, like all serious crime, is pre-dominantly intra-racial, not interfacial. The surge in violent youth crime has been most acute among black inner-city males.

Was that last part true? I don't know, and I'm not sure where to look to find that information from the 90s. If it wasn't true, this could be construed as a racist statement, but is it a racist DOGWHISTLE? I don't think so, because talking about black people killing other black people doesn't seem to be tailor-made to appeal to the racial fears of white people, and that's what dogwhisting is. In fact, this one sentence does seem to bolster the idea that the Clintons believed that in addressing the Superpredator scare, they were helping black communities.

all i see is an old creep refusing to accept that a term is racist and was racist even in the 90s but u do what u gotta do creepy

fuck that dog

"""""talking about black people killing other black people doesn't seem to be tailor-made to appeal to the racial fears of white people"""

WHY WONT THE BLAX TALK ABT BLACK ON BLACK CRIME HUH?
yea bro absolutely no dogwhistle if you just squint ur eyes enough

It was always a racial dogwhistle, no matter how much you try to slice it, you're old enough to know it was called out as such back then dude, despite the novels you've written here as apologia.

I mean sure, we can continue to believe the fairytale version of the dems who don't recognise when they're using very racialised language when the source was explicitly racialised OR we can fucking admit that even Clinton herself backpedalled on it after pushback on just how fucking racist it was?

Nah though, let's continue another fucking 20-30 years of benefit of the doubt huh, that's surely a great strategy!

>>>OR we can fucking admit that even Clinton herself backpedalled on it after pushback on just how fucking racist it was?

That part seems 100 per cent undeniable. Why would anyone backpedal BEFORE the pushback? But as far as I can tell the pushback AND the backpedaling were in 2016, long after SuperPredators had ceased to be part of the public policy debate.

>>>Nah though, let's continue another fucking 20-30 years of benefit of the doubt huh, that's surely a great strategy!

You know who DOESN'T extend the benefit of the doubt? Fox News. Brietbart. InfoWars.

And it doesn't fucking matter. The Clinton crime initiative is history, but it happened, and so it's always worth discussing. Let's talk about the people who were hurt, and maybe even the people who were helped. I don't have a problem asking the candidate if she still defends that policy, or if she has a better idea.

This kind of argument reminds me of "virtue signalling". We can't know Hillary Clnton's thoughts, but twenty years after we have the actions and the effects, the thoughts behind the words don't matter as much.

Speaking of backpedaling, I notice that you didn't mention dog-whistling this time.

I messed up the reply button again. I'm going to paste this heat because I don't want to disrupt the FLOW

>>WHY WONT THE BLAX TALK ABT BLACK ON BLACK CRIME HUH?
yea bro absolutely no dogwhistle if you just squint ur eyes enough

In the context of police shootings of unarmed blacks in 2018, WHY WONT THE BLAX TALK ABT BLACK ON BLACK CRIME HUH? is an absolute dogwhistle. In the context of gang violence in 1996, I'm pretty sure blacks DID talk about black on black crime.

>>>all i see is an old creep refusing to accept that a term is racist and was racist even in the 90s but u do what u gotta do creepy

>>>fuck that dog

https://youtu.be/hLEG9QYyuUY

"The Clinton crime initiative is history"

Yeah, I'm sure the young black men jailed under it will agree, oh wait...

ME: "It was always a racial dogwhistle, no matter how much you try to slice it"

YOU: "Speaking of backpedaling, I notice that you didn't mention dog-whistling this time."

Do you even bother to read before reacting? Sure doesn't seem like it.

>>>"The Clinton crime initiative is history"
>>>Yeah, I'm sure the young black men jailed under it will agree, oh wait...

Really? You don't feel I'm reading what you write? REALLY?

Let me take you on a little tour of what i just wrote, because all of a sudden, it seems necessary.

>>> The Clinton crime initiative is history, but it happened, and so it's always worth discussing. Let's talk about the people who were hurt, and maybe even the people who were helped. I don't have a problem asking the candidate if she still defends that policy, or if she has a better idea.

In this context, "History" means a "a fact", "a thing that happened, and has been observed and recorded", offered in opposition to speculating on someone's inner thoughts from 20 years ago.

Readers of English will note that I am strongly in favor of confronting Hillary Clinton on the history, the facts, the things that actually happened and were observed and recorded, in relation to the Clinton Crime initiative, and yes, I am talking about the locked-up black men. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, I think it would be good to talk about how we really did that, how we're still doing that, and how we could avoid doing that so much in the future. Of course, Donald trump was elected, and so now we're also locking up little brown children.

"Really? You don't feel I'm reading what you write?"

Let me illustrate the point AGAIN.

"ME: "It was always a racial dogwhistle, no matter how much you try to slice it"

YOU: "Speaking of backpedaling, I notice that you didn't mention dog-whistling this time." "

So yeah, you responded either having entirely ignored or not understood what was posted. As proven by your own post quoted above, twice.

Me: *mentions dogwhistle*

You: I NOTICE YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE DOGWHISTLE

Sorry. I see it now. You posted twice; I thought you posted once. I was confused. Probably because you keep posting the same thing over and over again, without offering a real argument.

The argument that believing that it may not have been a dogwhistle is to believe a fairytale. In college we called it "an argument". Your argument lacks an argument.

I guess I should be open to the possibility. If you've convinced me of anything, it's that clinging stubbornly abnd desperately to a belief in spite of all evidence is a dick move.

I've already told you how to win this argument, and I'll tell you again, because clearly you need some help. When George H W. Bush ran his Willie Horton Ad in 1988, everybody knew what that was. Show me some significant pushback from 1996. Racial dogwhistles are paradoxical, but they're not subtle. Someone would have noticed in real time. If not, I'm sorry, it's probably revisionism.

I've seen the clip several times, and it's embarrassing as hell. She cites bad science, but it looks worse now that the science has been discredited. And let me say this yet again: My understanding is limited, but the Clinton Crime initiative was a real valid issue and it was something that she ought to be held accountable for.

I'm not even saying that there wasn't an element of racism. We all have prejudices, and we all betray them from time to time.

I'm saying that she was wrong. All along I've been saying that, and you're saying that's not enough. She has to be evil. She has to be a hate monger. You can't back away from that belief.

I'm not saying that it's misogyny. I can't read your mind like you can read Hillary Clinton's mind. But that's what it looks like to me, based on how a lot of other people have reacted to her.

But there are other explanations. Maybe you just don't trust politicians. You shouldn't, but we need politicians. Politics is a skill set, and some of the skills include bullshit and compromise. In spite of the outcome, I still believe that Hilary Clinton is a competent politician and Donald Trump is an incompetent politician. And that's why he's dangerous. Incompetent politicians prefer authoritarianism.

>>>The argument that believing that it may not have been a dogwhistle is to believe a fairytale. In college we called it "an argument". Your argument lacks an argument.

This part is totally bungled. I could correct it, but it's pretty dickish, so I'm just going to ask you to ignore it.

I really should work from a text file. and post from there