Middle Ground (opinion) – Page 3

Hillary’s Locker Room Talk

(Photo by: Matt Rourke)

There’s been a lot said lately about Hillary Clinton viciously attacking her husband’s accusers. I admit, I never really followed that closely the soap opera that was the Clinton marriage. Now that it’s come to the forefront again, I thought, in the interest in fairness (I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve been kinda harsh on Trump lately), I really ought to take a close look at this. I have to say, what I found was indeed shocking. I was truly surprised at the viciousness of these attacks. Let’s recap what I found. Join me, won’t you?

Monica Lewinsky

Might as well start at the top. The cigar-hiding intern who nearly brought down a presidency. What Bill (allegedly) did: He porked an intern. Certainly that raises some ethical questions, but to be fair, there is no indication that any of their, ahem, “interactions” were anything but consensual. What Hillary (allegedly) did: In a private (let’s say “locker room”) conversation, she called Monica, and I quote, a “narcissistic loony toon”.

Wow! I know. Talk about the mouth of a sailor. I’m sorry you had to hear language like that, but I wanted you to get the full impact of it. Certainly someone who talks like that has no business being president.

Paula Jones

Another big name on the Bill Clinton hit parade. What Bill (allegedly) did: Exposed himself and propositioned her. She turned him down. Perhaps if he’d had a Tic-Tac first, or bought her some furniture, or maybe just grabbed her by the… Well, we’ll never know.

Anywho, he was governor, she was a state employee, so she sued him for sexual harassment. Case was eventually dismissed before reaching trial. Paula’s legal team appealed. Bill settled, with the usual “no admission of guilt”. Paula got $850,000, most of which went to her lawyers.

What Hillary (allegedly) did: While there is no indication from anyone that Hillary did anything to attack Paula directly, according to Paula, Bill and/or Hillary “sent out people to dig up trash on me”.

It’s not clear whether this was before or after she appeared in Penthouse magazine (for the kids out there, that what we had for porn before the Internet), not that I’m judging. I also have no idea what was eventually “dug up”, but it had to be just awful, vicious stuff about her.

Kathleen Willey

Speaking of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey was asked to testify in the Paula Jones case. What Bill (allegedly) did: He grabbed her by the…. Well, let’s just say, he put a move on her we’ll call the “Trump Handshake”. What Hillary (allegedly) did: Nothing.

But, her writer buddy, Sid Blumenthal (the real one, not the one quoted by Russian propagandists), had lunch with Kathleen’s writer buddy, Christopher Hitchens, where Chris mentioned a recent “60 Minutes” piece on the situation, to which Sid replied “Well she may look good today, she’s not going to look so good by Friday.” Sounds super menacing, right?

Of course, to the casual observer this sounds like nothing more than an observation on how quickly tides turn in the media. But we know better, don’t we. That was clearly a threat, straight from Hillary’s mouth. Well, not so much straight as by way of a guy named Sid, which is, of course, the most threatening way to deliver a threat. And we all know how threatening writers can be, what with that whole mighty pen sword fixation they have.

Gennifer Flowers

And the hit parade continues. What Bill (allegedly) did: Had a long term affair with her. By all accounts this was a consensual relationship. What Hillary (allegedly) did: Possibly hired a private investigator. Now that’s just a crazy, wacky, totally unhinged thing for a wife to do when she suspects her husband of cheating. I mean honestly, who does that?

Also, she called Gennifer a “failed cabaret singer who doesn’t have much of a resume”. Again, I must apologize for all this “locker room” talk. I would never use such language, were it not a direct quote, but it’s important you hear her exact words. Certainly we should never accept such crude and offensive language from a candidate for the highest office in the land.

Juanita Broaddrick

I’ve saved the best for last. This one is special, and for the first time, we see clear unmistakable signs of an actual attack by Hillary against one of Bill’s accusers. I know, I know, I made you wait, but trust me, it’s worth it.

What Bill (allegedly) did: He raped her. Or not. She did not report the attack to law enforcement, but she did report it to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Skip ahead a few years, and she is called to testify in the Paul Jones case.

Now here’s where it gets weird. In a signed affidavit, under oath, she DENIES that Bill raped her. Later, when Kenneth Starr is investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal, she denies the denial. So, did he or didn’t he? At this point, only Juanita knows for sure.

What Hillary (allegedly) did: Threatened her in an attempt to keep her quiet. Or not. In a 1999 interview she was asked if Bill, or anyone near Bill, ever threatened her or intimidated her to keep her quiet. Her answer? “no”.

But, and here’s where it gets really interesting, if we rewind to 1978, just after the attack allegedly happened, but before she went to the newspapers, she tells the story of the night Hillary threatened her.

Hillary approached Juanita at a fundraiser and said, and I quote, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

Woah! Right? Did you hear that? I know that to the casual observer, that sounds like the normal kind of thing a candidate’s wife might say to literally anyone at a fundraising event. But you and I know, that’s some serious twisted “House of Cards” shit right there. Thanking her? For everything she did? Damn, that’s cold blooded!

So, not only does Hillary let Juanita know that she knows what’s going on, but she does it in such a way that if she didn’t know what’s going on, this Juanita chick would look like she’s batshit paranoid. Only Juanita’s not batshit paranoid, she would only be paranoid if Hillary didn’t know. But Hillary clearly knows, I mean why else would Hillary go so far out of the way to look like she didn’t know? Clever, right?

And, and, in the same move, Hillary doesn’t just let her know she’s on to her, Hillary in the same sentence threatens her with… with… well with… Thanks? Appreciation? Wait. Okay, I’m not sure what she threatened her with, but she threatened her with something. I mean, that’s clearly a threat. We all know Hillary threatened something, she had to, she’s Hillary after all. I mean, you see it too, right?

Locker Room Talk

Donald Trump’s apologists, many of them women, have launched a three-pronged defense of the latest recorded revelations of his true attitudes towards women. The defense goes something like this…

1. All guys talk like this in private

2. It’s just locker room talk, it doesn’t mean anything

3. Boys will be boys. / Men will be men.

Okay, let’s examine, shall we?

All guys talk like this in private.

No. They don’t. Some do, we’ve all heard them, but no, not all. Not all men. There are actually guys out there that respect women as people, rather than regard them as objects. There are actually guys out there who do not talk like this.

Personally, I have never bragged about sexually assaulting a woman, and I know other guys who never have either. And there’s plenty of us guys out there who don’t think it’s cool to talk about fucking another man’s wife. Frankly, the idea that we’re all alike, that we all talk like some shit-for-brains hormonal middle-school troglodyte, is offensive. Some of us who take great pride in how we treat the women in our life.

If you are a woman, and the significant men in your life all talk like this, first, I’m sorry. Second, I would recommend you try associating yourself with a higher class of man. Your personal experience notwithstanding, not all men are scumbags.

It’s just locker room talk, it doesn’t mean anything

This is probably the most dangerous element of the apology. Sure, some of it was “just talk”, the usual locker room vulgarity, and right, who cares, but… Some of it was talk about actions. Actions. Actual things he has done. Part of it was Trump bragging about how he assaulted women, and how it was okay because he was a “star”.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything.” I wish I were exaggerating, but that is an actual quote.

This isn’t just talk anymore. This is admitting to sexual assault, and being proud of it. Let me say that again, so maybe it sinks in a little. He is proud of having assaulted women. Proud of it! At least Monica’s time as a makeshift humidor was consensual. And at least Bill had just enough common decency left to not be proud of it.

And it is particularly telling, in his apology, while he apologized for what he said, he never once apologized for what he did. Why would he, in his “good mind” he thinks it’s okay, because he’s the “star”. He’s only sorry he got caught talking about it. He has a team of lawyers to take care of the rest.

Again, not all men are like this. If this is how your man treats you, and other women, get out of that relationship. Believe it or not, there are men out there who respect women, and treat them as worthy of respect. You deserve better.

Boys will be boys. / Men will be men.

This is the excuse you use when boys get hurt climbing a tree, or men get into a bar fight. It is not a valid defense for sexual assault. Remember when Brock Turner, the swimming star for Stanford University, raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster? Remember how upset everyone was when the judge basically treated that as a “boys will be boys” incident? Why, because it simply is not a valid excuse for sexual assault, Brock Turner’s or Donald Trump’s. End of story.

Do you really want your son growing up to think it’s okay to assault girls, because that’s just what boys do? Stop it! If you wouldn’t except this behavior from your son, you certainly shouldn’t condone it in a president.

Why did the Arizona Republic switch sides after 120 years?

photo by The Arizona Republic

The Arizona Republic, founded in 1890, is the daily newspaper of Phoenix, and the largest newspaper in Arizona.

The Arizona Republic has never endorsed a Democrat for president. Ever. They did NOT endorse JFK, Woodrow Wilson, or FDR. (They REALLY didn’t like FDR.) For 120 years, they have exclusively endorsed only Republican candidates for president.

In short, the Arizona Republic is a conservative paper in a conservative state.

This year, for a number of reasons, they are not endorsing Donald Trump. I would like to invite you to take a close look at the carefully considered reasons for this break from their heritage…

On Temperament…

“The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting. Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not.”

“[Clinton] has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians. The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity.Trump hasn’t even let the American people scrutinize his tax returns, which could help the nation judge his claims of business acumen.”

On Clinton’s Flaws…

“She has made serious missteps. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State was a mistake. … Donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State raise concerns that donors were hoping to buy access.”

“Yet despite her flaws, Clinton is the superior choice. She does not casually say things that embolden our adversaries and frighten our allies. … Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She’s tough. She doesn’t back down.”

“Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads. That’s beneath our national dignity. When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet.”

On Foreign Policy…

“[Clinton] is intimately familiar with the challenges we face in our relations with Russia, China, the Middle East, North Korea and elsewhere. She’ll stand by our friends and she’s not afraid to confront our enemies.”

“Contrast Clinton’s tenacity and professionalism with Trump, who began his campaign with gross generalities about Mexico and Mexicans as criminals and rapists. These were careless slaps at a valued trading partner and Arizona’s neighbor. They were thoughtless insults about people whose labor and energy enrich our country.”

On Immigration…

“Arizona went down the hardline immigration road Trump travels. It led our state to SB 1070, the 2010 “show me your papers” law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration. Arizona understands that we don’t need a repeat of that divisive, unproductive fiasco on the national level. … We need a president who can broker solutions.”

On Human Rights…

“As secretary of state, Clinton made gender equality a priority for U.S. foreign policy. This is an extension of Clinton’s bold ‘women’s rights are human rights’ speech in 1995. It reflects an understanding that America’s commitment to human rights is a critically needed beacon in today’s troubled world.”

“Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes. They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.”

“Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration. Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.”

On Supreme Court Nominations…

“Many Republicans … shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton naming Supreme Court justices. So they stick with Trump. We get that. But we ask them to see Trump for what he is — and what he is not. Trump’s conversion to conservatism is recent and unconvincing. There is no guarantee he will name solid conservatives to the Supreme Court.”

“Hillary Clinton has long been a centrist. Despite her tack left to woo Bernie Sanders supporters, Clinton retains her centrist roots. Her justices might not be in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but they will be accomplished individuals with the experience, education and intelligence to handle the job. They will be competent. Just as she is competent.”

On Trump’s Lack of Control

“Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony. The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.”

“Were he to become president, his casual remarks — such as saying he wouldn’t defend NATO partners from invasion — could have devastating consequences.” … Trump suggested Russia engage in espionage against Hillary Clinton — an outrageous statement that he later insisted was meant in jest. Trump said President Obama and Hillary Clinton were ‘co-founders’ of ISIS, then walked that back by saying it was sarcasm. It was reckless. Being the leader of the free world requires a sense of propriety that Trump lacks.”

On Trump’s Appeal…

“We understand that Trump’s candidacy tapped a deep discontent among those who feel left behind by a changed economy and shifting demographics. Their concerns deserve to be discussed with respect. Ironically, Trump hasn’t done that. He has merely pandered. Instead of offering solutions, he hangs scapegoats like piñatas and invites people to take a swing.”

“In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord. In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.”

“America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class. This is Hillary Clinton’s opportunity. She can reach out to those who feel left behind. She can make it clear that America sees them and will address their concerns. She can move us beyond rancor and incivility.”

Conclusion

So for the first time, The Arizona Republic is endorsing a Democrat. For all the reasons above, they are endorsing Hillary Clinton. Those are just the highlights, you can read the entire endorsement here:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

Are you ready for some …. politically charged racist nonsense, before getting on with a completely pointless game of …. football?

I suppose you’ve been wondering when I would get around to saying something about Colin Kaepernick and his sit-down protest of the national anthem. Well, I was really hoping we could let this one slide past, but some of you just won’t let it go, on both sides, so… Here we go. In no particular order, here are a few random thoughts on Mr. Kaepernick’s 15 minutes of infamy…

First, regardless of what I or anyone thinks of what he has to say, he absolutely has the right to say it. We have freedom of speech in this country for a reason. If you want to live in a country where everyone is forced to stand for the national anthem, move to North Korea. We stand by choice, out of respect. That is as it should be. If there is no choice it is a meaningless gesture.

Second, by the same token, if someone is disrespectful, of anything, you have every right to criticize it. First amendment protection only protects oneself from the government, not from the opinions of individuals. Speech has consequences. Our first amendment simply guarantees that one of those consequences is not prison.

Third, and more to the heart of the matter, I respect Kaepernick’s desire to protest, but I think he is an absolute idiot for choosing the method he did.

Yes, an idiot. Here’s why…

In a nutshell, his protest accomplishes nothing. Nothing. We have gotten so caught up in HOW he is protesting, that no one is talking about WHAT he is protesting. His protest started a dialog alright, but it’s entirely the wrong dialog. It is not just ineffective, it is a distraction from the dialog we should be having.

The simple fact is, black people are disproportionately more likely to be stopped, searched, detained, and arrested than white people. They are more likely to be convicted, and are more likely to serve longer sentences. Those facts are clear. (Go look them up, if you like… I’ll wait.) What is not entirely clear is whether, once stopped by the police, blacks are more likely to be injured or killed by the police than whites, but even if the rate of injury or death is the same, as one study suggests, the fact remains that they are stopped, and thus subjected to that possibility, disproportionately more often.

Regardless of the reasons, regardless of the perceptions, regardless of anecdotal evidence, the fact is that the black experience in their relationship to the police, and to the criminal justice system, is very different than the white experience. This is the conversation we should be having. This is what the protests should be all about. But no, everyone’s bent about whether or not athletes should stand before a ball game. Standing, sitting, or taking a knee is not the problem. Nor is it the solution. It is nothing but a distraction, and focusing on it does no one any good.

If I had any advice to offer Kaepernick (like he would have any idea who I am), it’s this. There are other ways to start the dialog we both know needs to happen, so stop freaking out the white people, stand up, and find another way to make your point.

Third, I’ve heard a lot of people say that he has no right to complain, because he was raised by a wealthy white family, has lived a life of privilege, and is paid millions of dollars to play a game. I’ve heard him called a whiny, ungrateful, spoiled little brat. And worse…

This notion that, just because one has not personally experienced oppression, that one cannot protest on behalf of the oppression of others, I find this notion deeply disturbing. This idea that I cannot complain about the unjust treatment of others, simply because I have had the good fortune to live a life or relative ease, I find personally insulting.

You do realize right, he is not protesting on behalf of himself, he is protesting on behalf of the millions of nameless, faceless people who do not have weekly exposure on national television. If the people who enjoy celebrity will not speak out for those without a voice, who will? Those of us who are fortunate enough to have used our skills and talents to achieve a level of success, do we not have a responsibility to advocate for those who have been less fortunate?

Personally, I believe we do. That is why you will find me here often, complaining about things that do not affect me personally. I believe Colin Kaepernick does too. I just think he chose an unfortunate and ineffective way of going about it.

I hope he changes his approach soon, his current “protest” isn’t doing anyone any good.

Let’s Talk About Who We’re Voting For…

I know, it’s taboo, but…this year is the year that breaks all the rules. Any other year, if you asked, I might tell you who I liked or didn’t like. Any other year I might just as likely tell you it’s none of your goddamn business. And any other year I could not possibly care one whit who you were voting for. But, this year is different, so let’s talk about it.

I have always been registered as an Independent. I strongly lean Republican on economic and defense issues, but could never abide their desire to restrict personal freedom on social and religious issues. As a result I tend to vote Republican more often than not.

At the presidential level, I have only once not voted Republican, and that was to vote 3rd party (a deeply disappointing experience). This year would have been no different, I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for any of the other 17 Republican candidates, except one. Yes, even Ted Cruz, as repugnant as I find him, as any of those 17 were preferable to Hillary Clinton. Except one.

Additionally, I have never before publicly advocated for or endorsed any candidate. I would make general comments about any candidate, or more often about specific issues, but I was never one to publicly support any particular candidate. For any office. This year would have been no different, had the Republican party nominated any of their 17 candidates, except one.

But, that didn’t happen. This year IS different. It is fundamentally different. This year it is NOT about politics. It is about principle. It is about who we are as a people. It is about the survival of the Republic as we know it. I may be powerless to prevent it, but I will not knowingly be a part of the destruction of our society. I cannot and will not remain quiet about this. I can only apologize in advance if you’re tired of hearing it.

This year I will very likely do the unthinkable. I will very likely vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will urge others to consider doing the same. For the survival of the Republic. For the survival of our principles. For the survival of the American ideal. For the survival of who we are. And yes, I am fully prepared to accept the consequences if she wins.

If you cannot bring yourself to do the same, know that I while I understand, I beg you, I implore you, at least consider Gary Johnson. He really is the better choice, and a strong third party showing would do wonders for our political system, if anything is to remain of it after this year. Who knows, by November, I may even convince myself to join you.

Trump and Cruz — The New Win-Win…

Okay, let’s be really clear about the Ted Cruz speech at the RNC. Trump and his campaign knew exactly what Cruz was going to say in that speech, and they put him up there anyway. Why? Theater. Well, sort of…

Trump doesn’t know classical theater, but what he does know? Professional wrestling. He’s spent a good deal of time on stage with the WWE, and he understands exactly how it works. Cruz gets to speak his peace at the convention for the same reason the bad-guy wrestlers get so much air time talking smack about the good-guy wrestlers, just before the good-guy wrestler makes his appearance and the bad-guy wrestler wraps it up and quickly slinks away. Did you notice Trump’s appearance right at the end of Cruz’s speech? That was no accident or impromptu reaction. That was classic stagecraft, in the WWE tradition.

This was an easy “win” for Trump. He gets to remind everyone of his overwhelming “victory” by parading his vanquished foe on stage for his fans to jeer at. Trump gets to be the “victim”, attacked by Cruz’s refusal to endorse him. And he gets to portray Cruz as the poster-child of the conscience-voting ant-Trump Republicans, arguably their worst possible representative. So Trump gets to be the good guy, under attack but prevailing, banishing his foes back to the political underworld from which they came.

But don’t feel bad for Cruz, it’s a “win” for him too. He gets to “stand up for his principles”. He gets to basically deliver a giant FU to Trump at his own convention. And he positions himself perfectly for 2020.

Cruz is betting that the Trump campaign implodes in the general, or at least fails at electoral math. (A real possibility, given Trump’s skill with numbers, facts, reality, etc.) It’s not just a good bet, it’s really his only play. A Trump win leaves Cruz out in the cold regardless of anything he does, but a Trump loss? That’s something he can work with. If Trump tanks and Clinton wins, Cruz is perfectly positioned for 2020 as the conservative, principled candidate. The man who stood his ground, refused to back down to the Trump machine, and still appeals to the right and the far right. His “strength” and “principles” become a stark contrast to Hillary, who is unlikely to win any converts, and a 2020 win for Ted becomes a very real possibility.

So yeah, Trump knew exactly what Cruz was going to say. And Cruz knew exactly why Trump was going to let him say it. They probably had long meetings and conference calls about it, planning it all out. It is the classic political win-win scenario. Everyone wins. Everyone benefits. (Except as always, us.)

photo from the Tea Party Tribune

Thoughts on Trump and Religion…

Lately I’ve been trying to prepare myself mentally for a Trump presidency. (Yes, I know the latest polls show him loosing, but… the Trump phenomenon has so far defied the conventional logic of polling as effectively as Kirk whooping Spock’s ass in three dimensional space chess.)

Trump has made his feelings on Muslims made very clear. Step one, don’t let any more into the country. Step two, register and track all the ones that are already here. I can only assume the unspoken step three involves rounding them up and/or shipping them off.

On the other end of the spectrum, Trump has said he wants to force everyone to say “Merry Christmas”. How he intends to do this is unclear, but that Christianity is his preferred religious group seems clear.

From this we can extrapolate that Trump intends to establish a new American caste system based on religion, with Christians enjoying all the benefits and privileges of being on top, and Muslims being kept very firmly under foot on the bottom.

My question is, where do the rest of us fit in? In Trump’s America, what is the status of the Jew, or the Buddhist, or the Hindu? Are they near the bottom with the Muslims, based on their non-Christian tradition? What about Catholics and Mormons? Are they “Christian” enough to be near the top? And what about the Atheists/Agnostics/Nones/Others? Where do they fit in Trump’s America, if at all?

Of course, we could all follow Trump’s example, and say we go to a Christian church, without the bother of actually attending. (No seriously, the church Trump claims to attend actually went out of their way to issue a statement saying that despite a long history with the Trump family, Donald himself is not a member of their congregation.)

Anyhow, I propose the following Trump American Religious Caste Hierarchy (Trump ARCH™), let me know what you think…

Pretend Christians

Pretend Catholics

Actual Christians

Actual Catholics

Pentecostals

Mormons

Snake Handlers

Agnostics

Jews

Zoroastrians

Atheists

Scientologists

Buddhists

Hindus

Gays

Mentally Handicapped

Physically Handicapped

Democrats

Muslims

(photo: Reuters/Brendan McDermid)

There have been times in my life…

… when I have been drunk. Shocking, I know, but… I have been drunk. I mean really drunk. No, I mean really, really drunk. I have been pass-out, blind, stinking, staggering, slobbering drunk.

I have made bad decisions. I have gone places I shouldn’t have. I have passed out in places I shouldn’t have. I have woken up in places I shouldn’t have. I have woken up in places I didn’t even recognize.

I’ve been so drunk I thought I could sing. I’ve been so drunk I thought I could leap off buildings. I’ve been so drunk I thought I could catch a duck. (Hint: You can’t, if you get close, those suckers know how to fly.) In short, I have been all kinds of drunk, but…

I have never, ever been so drunk that I thought it was okay to fuck a woman passed out behind a dumpster.

I don’t think it’s possible to get that drunk.

You see, you are either a person who thinks it’s okay to fuck someone who is passed out, or you are not. No amount of alcohol changes that.

When people do things drunk that they wouldn’t do sober, it is always, and I mean always, things that they wanted to do. The only reason they didn’t do them sober was because they feared the consequences. That is what alcohol does — it removes fear.

So, if you get caught fucking a woman passed out behind a dumpster, it’s not the alcohol. I don’t care how drunk you were. It just means you are the type of person who would fuck a woman passed out behind a dumpster. In short, it means that, drunk or sober, you are a rapist.

We should all just respect each other’s opinions

Lately I’ve noticed a number of Trump supporters saying things like, “everyone’s entitled to their opinion”, “you should respect my opinion”, and, “you claim tolerance but you’re being intolerant”.

All valid statements… normally. And I would agree with you… normally.

This is not a normal situation. Normal rules do not apply. What’s different? This….

Donald Trump is the first openly racist presidential candidate we’ve had in over 40 years. Lets let that sink in…. an openly racist candidate… for President of the United States.

Donald Trump is openly racist. Supporting him is itself an openly racist act. You may hold the opinion that his racism is somehow excusable or acceptable. Or that its somehow okay to support a racist, as long as you yourself are not racist. Or that its okay to support a racist, because he’s not Hillary. You are indeed entitled to any of those opinions. You are also wrong. Racism is not okay. Yours is a morally wrong opinion.

I am under no obligation to respect your racist opinion. Your opinion is unworthy of respect. In fact I will go on record right now and say if you support racism, in any form, I will have little or no respect for you.

Being openly racist is unacceptable. It is un-American. It has no place in our society. We should not tolerate it. We should never tolerate it. (If you’re confused, just remember, its okay to be intolerant of intolerance.)

Trump University

If you are going to vote for Trump, you owe it to yourself, and the rest of us, to understand what happened at Trump University. I picked the opinion piece below because it doesn’t use a lot of big words, but feel free to find your own, there are plenty of other articles out there, now that information is being released. Find one and read it, and… if you still think this man represents the kind of ethics and integrity you want in a president, then go ahead and vote for him. And may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/trump-university-revealing-dantonio/index.html