Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

[D.W.]

This isn't something that just suddenly cropped up out of the blue this election cycle.

Not sure if that was intentional or not, but it's pretty clever. 

You can't deny that certain Trump supporters are simply evil, Fenring.  And that has nothing to do with media reporting.

I will.  My brother, and several other relatives are not evil.  I, being a judgmental and sometimes superior feeling liberal, slot them in the uninformed and voting against their own interests catagory... but they are not evil.  For the love of whatever you hold dear (maybe our country?) use "some" or even "most" if you believe that when talking this way.  When you suggest it's all of them you come off as a fool not worth listening to.

Generalizations and vilification is what is going to make this country irreparable. 

[Fenring]

You can't deny that certain Trump supporters are simply evil, Fenring.  And that has nothing to do with media reporting.

I'll agree with D.W.'s comment on this, but again, commenting on what people "are" seems to me essentially incoherent. Unless you have a basis that goes back to first principles where evil is a "thing" and can be directly attributed to some people, what you're really saying is that you don't like what some people do, and are trying to paste a bad sounding word onto them to dismiss them as people. Even most religions I know of don't have any basis for a metaphysics where a person can "be" evil, although it could be said that they do evil things sometimes. And if you put religion aside then the word really is no more than a rhetorical attack akin to "I don't like them!" In which case, no, I cannot deny that you may not like certain people.

[JoshCrow]

"bad apples" would have been fairer than "evil".

[D.W.]

"bad apples" would have been fairer than "evil".

Well I can see my Trump voting family as bad apples leaping into the cider press because there are a few rotten apples at the bottom of the basket. 

[Wayward Son]

D.W. said:

You can't deny that certain Trump supporters are simply evil, Fenring.  And that has nothing to do with media reporting.

I will.  My brother, and several other relatives are not evil.  I, being a judgmental and sometimes superior feeling liberal, slot them in the uninformed and voting against their own interests catagory... but they are not evil.  For the love of whatever you hold dear (maybe our country?) use "some" or even "most" if you believe that when talking this way.  When you suggest it's all of them you come off as a fool not worth listening to.

Generalizations and vilification is what is going to make this country irreparable.

I would if I could, D.W., but apparently I can't.

Because if you review my quote, I did.

You can't deny that certain Trump supporters are simply evil, Fenring.

Here, I used the word "certain" as "a limited number," as in "certain individuals."  I did not mean it as "those who have certainty in their belief."

Perhaps I should have used a word that was less possible to misinterpret.  But I think this is a symptom of our current political climate.

When Hillary talked about Trump's "basket of deplorables," she was not referring to all Trump supporters, either.  But it was taken that way by many, if not most, of them.  And yet there is a number of deplorables that strongly support Trump--racists (KKK), sexists (Alt-Right), and just plain scum.

Review my examples in my last post.  Those death threats were directed at Conservatives--individuals who have been reporting Conservative stories and ideals for years.  Yet they were considered worthy of these despicable acts, because they criticized or embarrassed Trump.

So, no, I don't think or say that all Trump supporters are like this.  I believe they are a tiny minority.  But I also don't believe both sides are the same.  Romney didn't get such enthusiastic support from the KKK.  Republican opponents of John McCain didn't have to worry about being killed by McCain supporters.  This is a new level of aggression.

I don't blame Trump for the behavior of this tiny minority.  But it worries me.  Because, for whatever reason, these scum apparently believe that Trump is one of them.

And I'm deeply afraid that they might--just might--be right.

[Wayward Son]

Oh, yeah, there's one more prediction about the Trump Administration I forgot to mention.

We've had almost eight years now without a senior-level member of the President's administration convicted of corruption.  (A new record in recent history.)  Sure, plenty of scandals and inquiries, but no actual convictions, like in the Nixon or Reagan Administrations.

That is going to change.

There will be at least 2 members of the Trump Administration that will be convicted of criminal charges.

And I wouldn't take any bets that Trump himself won't be one of them.

[Wayward Son]

You can't deny that certain Trump supporters are simply evil, Fenring.  And that has nothing to do with media reporting.

I'll agree with D.W.'s comment on this, but again, commenting on what people "are" seems to me essentially incoherent. Unless you have a basis that goes back to first principles where evil is a "thing" and can be directly attributed to some people, what you're really saying is that you don't like what some people do, and are trying to paste a bad sounding word onto them to dismiss them as people. Even most religions I know of don't have any basis for a metaphysics where a person can "be" evil, although it could be said that they do evil things sometimes. And if you put religion aside then the word really is no more than a rhetorical attack akin to "I don't like them!" In which case, no, I cannot deny that you may not like certain people.

Oh, yeah, Fenring, when a person makes a picture of your daughter in a gas chamber, that person is simply evil.  When a person threatens your family because you've said bad--but true--things about your candidate, that's evil.

Yes, there are evil people on both sides.  But evil is the correct word to describe such people who think that threating children is an appropriate political response for people who disagree with them. 

[TheDeamon]

I wouldn't take bets on some Obama Administration officials not getting hammered for corruption now that his Administration can no longer shield them and "slow walk" the process.

[Lloyd Perna]

D.W. said:

When Hillary talked about Trump's "basket of deplorables," she was not referring to all Trump supporters, either.  But it was taken that way by many, if not most, of them. 

You're right, she was only referring to half of them.   

[NobleHunter]

I wouldn't take bets on some Obama Administration officials not getting hammered for corruption now that his Administration can no longer shield them and "slow walk" the process.

I bet Trump "in the spirit of bipartisanship" will drop most investigations.

The last thing he'll want is to set the precedent of investigations after he leaves office. If for no other reason than he seems so incompetent that he'll break all sorts of rules by accident.

[TheDeamon]

I wouldn't take bets on some Obama Administration officials not getting hammered for corruption now that his Administration can no longer shield them and "slow walk" the process.

I bet Trump "in the spirit of bipartisanship" will drop most investigations.

The last thing he'll want is to set the precedent of investigations after he leaves office. If for no other reason than he seems so incompetent that he'll break all sorts of rules by accident.

Looking like Ted Cruz may be the next Attorney General. Do you want to take odds on Trump calling him off?

[D.W.]

Apologies Wayward Son.  Reading comprehension failure...   

[yossarian22c]

I predict Trump cabinet members will have on average the shortest length of service of any cabinet in the last 50 years.

[cherrypoptart]

> Wayward Son

"There will be at least 2 members of the Trump Administration that will be convicted of criminal charges."

> TheDeamon

"I wouldn't take bets on some Obama Administration officials not getting hammered for corruption now that his Administration can no longer shield them and "slow walk" the process."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking along similar lines to both of these predictions except that I would say members of the Trump administration who are guilty of corruption are much more likely to get investigated and convicted than those in the Obama administration were because Trump won't protect them. He'll be the first to say, "You're fired!"

If under a Trump administration the head of the IRS targets conservative organizations like Lerner did they won't be protected the way she was and have their crimes ignored like Obama did for her.

 

[cherrypoptart]

If Ted Cruz is the next Attorney General that's awesome. Personally I think he would be great as a Supreme Court justice but since he isn't on Trump's list maybe that would technically be Trump breaking a promise. So Attorney General is the perfect spot for Cruz until the next vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up.

[cherrypoptart]

TheDeamon

"Looking like Ted Cruz may be the next Attorney General. Do you want to take odds on Trump calling him off?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if Obama issues mass pardons the investigations should still proceed without any chance of sentencing just to shine a light on the crimes committed against the American people. Or even if Obama doesn't issue pardons maybe Trump will but still conduct the investigations because the American people have the right to know what happened. The third option of course is to do the investigations and then try, convict, and imprison people guilty of crimes. I'm actually not so much in favor of that because then we start getting into third world banana republic territory where nobody in power ever gives it up because when they do they know they will be headed for prison, exile, or worse. High government officials who are guilty of crimes against the American people might have their pensions taken away though but not put in federal prison. That saves the taxpayers money two ways and makes a point without getting crazy about it.

But if someone is intent on arguing that people who are proven in a court of law to be guilty of their crimes getting the prison sentence they deserve and being forced to serve it to prove a point about nobody being above the law, I probably wouldn't use up too much oxygen arguing with them about it. That's a valid opinion too.

[TheDeamon]

I predict Trump cabinet members will have on average the shortest length of service of any cabinet in the last 50 years.

I think I was the first one to suggest something in that vein, so not going to dispute that one.

[Wayward Son]

Apologies Wayward Son.  Reading comprehension failure...   

Apology gratefully accepted. 

Even if Obama issues mass pardons the investigations should still proceed without any chance of sentencing just to shine a light on the crimes committed against the American people. Or even if Obama doesn't issue pardons maybe Trump will but still conduct the investigations because the American people have the right to know what happened. The third option of course is to do the investigations and then try, convict, and imprison people guilty of crimes.

If any of those things happens, then I have yet another prediction: no significant new information will be found in those investigations.

Because I don't think the Republicans who have investigated these scandals are nincompoops.  I think they did as thorough investigations as was possible.  I don't think there was any significant stonewalling by the Obama Administrations.  So I don't think there is much more to find.

[DJQuag]

https://youtu.be/_kZsOISarzg

John Oliver is the new John Stewart. We can all agree on that, right? I mean, really, his venue on HBO gives him more leeway to go into less talked about subjects at greater length then Comedy Central could ever have offered.

And if and when you're watching this clip, keep in mind it's a year old.

[DJQuag]

I mean, check out his talk about chicken farmers. Did you know about chicken farmers, or their problems? I sure didn't!

But as it turns out, they're just Americans trying to make a living getting bent over a barrel by huge corporations and politicians that have been paid off.

The election of Trump is a *censored*ing disaster. But it is a result of the little guy getting screwed more and more, every single year.

In the last cycle, Obama was the one offering hope. In this one, it was Trump.

[cherrypoptart]

Just going to harp on this again because as I predicted the media is still running this nonsense.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-incidents-spreading-in-wake-of-trump-win-231607863.html

These are the Trump haters doing this, obviously.

Why on Earth would actual Trump supporters have a banner saying Make America Racist (dropping the Great) Again? That doesn't even make any sense, especially dressing up in Klan sheets and a sombrero.

But the real story is how stories like this don't connect the obvious dots and call these the false flags that they are. Some of them aren't even false flags but obviously just liberals making a point about how they believe Trump is racist like the banner at the top of the story, and still the so called "journalists" report them as Trump supporters actually being racist. It's just absurd.

The media has really jumped the shark already with their complicity in shilling this agitprop nonsense.

If there actually are real hate crimes by true Trump supporters against minorities its going to be very hard to distinguish them from the liberals just hurting themselves in ridiculous Dale and Tucker Vs Evil style imagining they are fighting off some great villain when it's all just in their overactive imaginations.

[Gaoics79]

Cherry, you'll love this one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ottawa-jewish-prayer-centre-tagged-with-swastika-slur-and-its-rabbi-blamed-donald-trump

An attack like like can just pop up by itself without a specific, immediate cause, she believes. “And I also think we have a president-elect south of the border who has made it acceptable to be bigoted and racist.”

LOL.

[cherrypoptart]

I just want to be clear why I put a like on that. It's not that I like swastikas or even graffiti in any form but just the ridiculousness of it especially the assumption that it has anything to do with Trump. I would put the odds at over 99% that this is self inflicted, either by a liberal up there or by the lady herself, and the odds at 99.999% that whoever did it has no love at all for Trump. For one thing, Trump is more pro-Israel than any of the Democrats. Look at the guy the Democrats are thinking of making head of the DNC now.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20161114/NEWS/161119878/detroit-native-keith-ellison-looks-to-become-head-of-democratic

The notion that Trump is in any way anti-Jewish is simply absurd.

[Wayward Son]

Yes, we know.  Trump is not anti-Jewish.  He just appoints an advisor who happens to be closely aligned with anti-Semites.

"You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going," added [David] Duke. "And ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government."

And you wonder why people think Trump's election may make bigots think they are acceptable and can do what they want?

[Gaoics79]

Wayward, Trump's son-in-law and one of his closest advisors is Jewish and orthodox no less. His daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism, so yeah, his daughter is Jewish too.

There is 0.0% chance that Trump is an anti Semite.

Move on to more fertile pastures. This one is pretty barren.

[Fenring]

In addition to what jasonr said, Trump is a New York businessman whose activities have no doubt been deeply enmeshed with the Jewish community there. There is pretty much no possibility for someone like him to be an anti-Semite and have come this far without tons of people coming out with tales of his anti-Semitism. They haven't, so he isn't. Face it, he's just a jackass who blurts out offensive things. Even when he says gross things about women I almost get the sense that there's a disconnect in his brain there, where he feels totally ok saying those things, but where if asked he would abstractly admit to believing in the good treatment and respect of women and believe it as he explains it. That is partly why I'm hesitant to say he "is" those various bad epithets. In a way his beliefs about those things will matter more than his comportment when it comes to setting policy, because that will dictate which causes he champions.

[rightleft22]

We know that Trump believes that words don’t matter so a person can say racist things, even words that incite racist violence, and still not be a racist. (Personally I disagree)
 
Allowing for the above Trump is probably not a anti-Semite or even a racist as he may just be a person who does not put much value on such distinctions. 

He can hire a racist and anti-Semitic… as long as they ‘win’ for him and I suspect believes his ‘will’ being stronger will prevent anything from rubbing off.

“Be careful whom you associate with. It is human to imitate the habits of those with whom we interact. We inadvertently adopt their interests, their opinions, their values, and their habit of interpreting events.” Epictetus

[Gaoics79]

For the record rightleft, the evidence that Stephen Bannon is anti semitic (let alone Trump) is paper thin based on what I have seen. I am not even close to pursuaded that Bannon is an anti semite, despite the media's leap to indict him for that (and by implication, Trump)

[Wayward Son]

And yet true, verified anti-Semites believe that Bannon's ideology matches theirs.  Which is not surprising.  Bannon himself said that Brietbart is "the platform for the alt-right."  And one of the spokesmen for the Alt-Right said that Jews were not "European" enough and may not be welcome.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Trump is not repulsed by anti-Semitism.  That he will consider their arguments, maybe take their advice.  While he himself may not be anti-Semitic, he certainly seems to hold them in some esteem.

He may, of course, simply want such a person available to gain that different point of view.  But if so, we should expect to see a few dyed-in-the-wool Liberals on his advisory team, too, so he gets their point of view, too.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

[Gaoics79]

Lol. Wayward I always assume that when someone makes an argument they put their best argument forward and aren't holding anything back. But I'll just confirm it then - your best argument for Bannon and Trump being anti Semites is that Bannon is a voice if the "alt right", Trump is affiliated with Bannon and someone associated with the alt right said something anti semitic ergo Bannon is an anti semite ergo Trump is an anti semite. That about it?

[Gaoics79]

Incidentally Wayward, by your logic I suppose the fact that Trump has a Jewish daughter and a Jewish son in law must be evidence that the alt right can't be antisemitic

[DJQuag]

Do verified anti Semites believe that the sun rises in the east? Does Bannon? Enquiring minds want to know.

[AI Wessex]

i heard an interview with Richard Spencer (alt-right founder) on NPR yesterday.  He sees no harm in people wearing KKK robes or a swastika.  After all, they're just expressing their opinion. He doesn't think people of different races ever really get along, just tolerate each other's presence when they have to.  Nothing wrong with that, either.  As to how the sun rises, flat-earthers might give you an argument about whether it rises in the east for everyone, too, or if everyone should get their own sun.

[Fenring]

And is this "alt-right" group a formalized society with registered membership? Will you additionally assert the same attributes to one person you claim is in this "group" that appear to be in another?

[AI Wessex]

And is this "alt-right" group a formalized society with registered membership? Will you additionally assert the same attributes to one person you claim is in this "group" that appear to be in another?

No, he's the only person who feels the way he does.  Since all attacks on Muslims and blacks are done under false flags, we don't have to worry about that, either.  BTW, I didn't say "group", you did.

[Fenring]

BTW, I didn't say "group", you did.

That's interesting, because by citing "alt-right founder" you were directly insinuating that this pertained to your previous post. Are you now retracting that and saying your comment about Spencer was a non-sequitor?

And yes, when citing a "founder" one implies a "group".

[rightleft22]

when citing a "founder" one implies a "group".

I would argue that point.

[TheDeamon]

No, he's the only person who feels the way he does.  Since all attacks on Muslims and blacks are done under false flags, we don't have to worry about that, either.  BTW, I didn't say "group", you did.

Nobody is claiming ALL of the events that happened were "false flag." A LOT of the reported events ARE turning up to be either false reports, or otherwise staged or (deliberately?) misconstrued all the same.

A number of other events ARE also turning out to have other more mundane explanations, and not tied to hate groups or bona-fide racists near as anyone can tell.

There is a difference between many/most and ALL.

Give some of us credit, we know there is a "narrative" that various people would prefer to frame things under, but being skeptical is a healthy thing. That goes for reports coming from all sides, even the ones of supposed Hillary supporters going after alleged Trump voters. (Although those events seem to have better documentation)

[Fenring]

This has got to be the dumbest media cycle I've ever seen. Almost every story I'm seeing is about what Trump supporters are doing. I don't recall in the past reading about what Bush or Obama supporters did that discredited the politicians they supported, but apparently a dozen random events by idiots discredit Trump out of hand. This isn't even getting into the actual validity of all such reports. But even the insinuation that the actions of a few supposed Trump supporters prove he's going to ruin the country is becoming extremely tiresome. Liberal people on social media are going rabid right now to post anything and everything that furthers this narrative. I get that they hate Trump, but this is a dishonest, brainwashy tactic meant to reverberate around the echo chamber and achieve nothing but frothing at the mouth.

The people Trump appoints to key positions - that's fair game. The things Trump actually does, likewise. But this whole business about 'Trump supporters' is such rubbish.

[AI Wessex]

BTW, I didn't say "group", you did.

That's interesting, because by citing "alt-right founder" you were directly insinuating that this pertained to your previous post. Are you now retracting that and saying your comment about Spencer was a non-sequitor?

And yes, when citing a "founder" one implies a "group".

No, when one "cites a founder" the reader infers a group if that is their inclination.  It could be a movement, party, group or club, wot?  It's not a group and doesn't have meetings, but it is a mindset shared by a number of white nationalist, racist and xenophobic people and groups.  FWIW, the KKK was originally founded to defend Protestantism against Catholicism and elected a number of people on that agenda, but those who attacked the religion were also just offering an opinion.

Nobody is claiming ALL of the events that happened were "false flag." A LOT of the reported events ARE turning up to be either false reports, or otherwise staged or (deliberately?) misconstrued all the same.

I confess that I was being a tad sarcastic, but I would expect Cherry to be nodding in full agreement with the remark.  There are few truths about politics and political action that are universal or absolute.  As TheDrake and Fenring pointed out in another thread, it's both what you say and how you say it that count.  But lies do matter, as well as spreading provably false information.  Michael Flynn (father, as well as son) has done it, but nobody does it better than Trump and the new official White House news outlets, FOX and Breitbart.  If you get your news from either of those places, wipe your screen with a moist towelette after reading to guard against infection.

[Fenring]

And yes, when citing a "founder" one implies a "group".

No, when one "cites a founder" the reader infers a group if that is their inclination.  It could be a movement, party, group or club, wot?  It's not a group and doesn't have meetings, but it is a mindset shared by a number of white nationalist, racist and xenophobic people and groups.

A party, group or club are all "groups", as in, organizations. And I don't see how someone can found a 'movement' that is not based in at least an activist group. If a movement comes to exist as a result of or based on someone's example, that is still not what a "founder" is. Ron Paul did not "found" the Tea Party, for example, even though I think a lot of them drew inspiration from his economic ideals and even saw him as a sort of role model for the movement.

[AI Wessex]

A party, group or club are all "groups", as in, organizations. And I don't see how someone can found a 'movement' that is not based in at least an activist group. If a movement comes to exist as a result of or based on someone's example, that is still not what a "founder" is. Ron Paul did not "found" the Tea Party, for example, even though I think a lot of them drew inspiration from his economic ideals and even saw him as a sort of role model for the movement.

Was Bernie Sanders not the founder of a movement?  What group did he found?  Here's a long list of other movements that were "founded".  Are they also groups?  My favorite is the "Hippie Movement".

[Wayward Son]

Lol. Wayward I always assume that when someone makes an argument they put their best argument forward and aren't holding anything back. But I'll just confirm it then - your best argument for Bannon and Trump being anti Semites is that Bannon is a voice if the "alt right", Trump is affiliated with Bannon and someone associated with the alt right said something anti semitic ergo Bannon is an anti semite ergo Trump is an anti semite. That about it?

Technically, I never said that Trump was an anti-Semite.  (Review my posts if you don't believe it.)

Although, I'll admit, there was an implication of such...

And I won't even go quite so far as to state that Bannon is an anti-Semite, even though he reportedly bad-mouthed "whiny Jewish children" and didn't want his children to school with them.

But it is a fact that he bragged about providing a platform for people who are anti-Semites, and proudly so.  And that's where the concern lies.

Because Bannon is not just an "associate," like someone you might do business with or go to dinner every once in a while.  He's an advisor.

So Donald Trump wants advice from a person who brags about giving a bullhorn to anti-Semites.  He seeks the opinion of a person who supports those who want Jews kicked out of the country.  It makes me wonder, what kind of advice is Donald Trump hoping to get from Bannon that he couldn't get from someone else?

Presidents often defer to the opinions of their staff and advisors.  What decisions do you think Trump might defer to Bannon?  For what questions do you think he wants the advise of Bannon?

Trump may not be anti-Semitic.  But he will be listening closely to someone who has supported anti-Semites in the past.

[Wayward Son]

Almost every story I'm seeing is about what Trump supporters are doing. I don't recall in the past reading about what Bush or Obama supporters did that discredited the politicians they supported, but apparently a dozen random events by idiots discredit Trump out of hand.

The problem is that Trump has said some things that appear to support these supporters.

And, more importantly, that those Trump supporters sincerely believe that Trump does support them.

So when the President says, "Illegal Mexicans are a bunch of murderers and rapists, and we need to deport them all," and the supporters say, "Hey, the President agrees with us that Mexicans are scum," and then supporters start harassing and beating Hispanics, there is a connection.

Sure, the supporters are misinterpreting what Trump said.  But until Trump stands up and tells them to stop, and that these people will be punished (or at least tweets it ), it's hard to be sure that Trump is sincerely against it.

Of course, maybe Trump has strongly spoken out against this behavior and the media hasn't emphasized it.  Got any examples?

[rightleft22]

Why are we being so PC about calling people that associate with racists, say racists things enough so that they get the support of acknowledged racists movements a racist?
I thought PC was dead?

If it smells like *censored*e, looks like *censored*e, feels like *censored*e you shouldn’t have to taste it to be able to label it *censored*e.

[Pete at Home]

I have to rush now (I'll get the numbers later), but let's baseline the unemployment rate, stock market, annual GDP growth, and budget deficit as of Monday and then predict where we will be in October 2018.

I'd like to hear, particularly from Trump supporters, where you think we will be if our new President-elect is successful by your standards. Feel free to include other measures, such as the number of illegal immigrants in the country, the number of people killed in terrorist attacks on American soil, or any other metrics that you believe would show how President Trump has been successful in the first 21 months in office.

We have Trump supporters in the room?  At last count we were all for Bernie except you and Al Wessex who were for Hillary.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, we know.  Trump is not anti-Jewish.  He just appoints an advisor who happens to be closely aligned with anti-Semites.

"You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going," added [David] Duke. "And ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government."

And you wonder why people think Trump's election may make bigots think they are acceptable and can do what they want?

That seems to be a major concern for quite a number of people that I used to respect.  Amid issues of economic depression, world war, torture, nuclear proliferation, climate change, Zika, and resurgent hate crimes, what really makes this group of otherwise intelligent people poo their pants and howl at the moon in rage is the idea that a few bigots might imagine themselves to be "acceptable."

[cherrypoptart]

For the record, I was for Trump even before Ann Coultur.

He was the only one who said anything about taking a look at birthright citizenship. He got out in front about deporting people here illegally before anyone else, though he's backpedaling a bit now. He was the only one serious about securing the border and putting his reputation on the line if it doesn't get done.

All of that is, of course, the very definition of racism. Just being for law and order is no excuse. In fact, being for law and order is actually just more code for being racist because we all know the laws affect some people more than others as the prison population proves. And of course if someone's a racist then they are an anti-Semite and anti-gay as well. Almost certainly misogynist to boot. Can't have one without the others.

For the record, Trump really is misogynist. I don't think he's the rest of it though.

[Pete at Home]

My understanding is that his business record includes some explicitly no black renters policies.

As for antisemitism, I think he's intentionally hinted to it just to distract the left and let them make fools of themselves as they did with Mel Gibson's movie.  Political correctness enforcers run amok have been Trump's most effective promoters.

[AI Wessex]

My understanding is that his business record includes some explicitly no black renters policies.

As for antisemitism, I think he's intentionally hinted to it just to distract the left and let them make fools of themselves as they did with Mel Gibson's movie.  Political correctness enforcers run amok have been Trump's most effective promoters.

Interesting that by asserting that Trump is not anti-semitic because Gibson is not anti-semitic, that that settles it.  Except that I believe that Gibson *was* and perhaps still *is* anti-semitic, though he claims that he regrets many of his past remarks.  Who can really know?