re: ABC: Mary Matalin just called out Van Jones on his race baiting

I like how van jones mentioned he was married to a white woman, were the black women not good enough for him?

You're right about the public reaction to supporting Donald because I didn't support Donald.

Are you saying that you kept your support private because you feared how people would react? I'd be interested to hear more about that.

Nope. I was very vocal about my support. Nobody wanted to hear from a successful educated Mexican though.

Look up the definition of bigot. You said trump preys on the uneducated. That is a bigoted statement.

quote:

---

You said trump preys on the uneducated.

---

Wait a minute. I didn't say "uneducated" (I've known a lot of smart people who weren't/aren't highly educated).

I wouldn't phrase it that way. Obviously Donald did get big-league support from the "poorly educated" (Donald's words), but I wasn't making distinctions about segments of people based only on education. Individuals have various value systems, discerning abilities, reasons why they do what they do. Formal education is part of that mix, but it's not the only part for consideration.

You attributed those words to me, then called me a bigot. I don't think anything I've said is bigoted, but if you disagree, you could explain your reasoning based on something I said.

quote:

---

Just curious, how many times did you tell people this regarding Trumps comments from 11 years ago regarding grabbing women by the pussy (when they let him)? I mean, I'm sure you are very even in your application of this, right?

---

I actually have defended Donald at times about stuff he said in the past. But I'm not going to defend Donald very much on this board for a number of reasons. Among them:

- I think there is already too much defense of Donald on this board, and much of the defense is nonsensical. I have no desire to take part in a circle jerk. Honestly, sometimes I get to a point where I dislike some right-wingers so much that I don't even want to express agreement when I do agree with them on a topic.

- Donald has spouted so much trumpery during the process of becoming president-elect that I don't think he deserves much defense.

- On the "grab" comment, Donald didn't really explain that to the point of clearing up different people's interpretations. At the second debate with Hillary, he seemed to imply that he might not have done what he was talking about and that it was just 'talk'. I really don't have much to say about it. The times that I posted about that leaked audio on this board, I was usually talking about how he said he moved like a bitch and failed to woo the woman, or joking about the "grab" stuff with the intent of ridiculing Donald because I think he deserves to be ridiculed and mocked. He started that game and the initiation matters. To make a comparison, let's say you're wrestling with someone, and then all of a sudden they start punching you in the face. If you don't start punching them back, you're at a disadvantage (provided it's a relatively even match). Now, if you're in a situation with people who would prefer good info and don't like insults and ridicule, or see it as silly or a distraction, then not punching back actually puts you at an advantage, but Donald's ridicule was working with a lot of people. I actually think Hillary made a mistake in the way that she punched back with "deplorables" and "irredeemables" (I think it's a mistake to say someone is irredeemable). She had attack dogs that would do that for her, so I think she should have let them do that and taken her messages in a more positive direction and focused more on specific issues.


I did defend Donald several times on this board regarding things he said in the past about abortion. Ted Cruz tried to use that against Donald when making dumb arguments about Supreme Court Justices. When I did, I would sometimes get accused of supporting Donald, as if one can't look at an issue and discern the truth of it without some kind of political partiality.