Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No? If you don’t think the fact that Jeb was married to a Mexican and whose kids were, as his father so memorably put it “little brown ones,” and who called Trump on his rhetoric in the primaries was a factor in his Not Winning, well bless your heart.

And Sanford was specifically targeted by Tumpists in the primaries because of his insufficiently harsh views on immigration and Bree Nelson. But whatever, dude.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It’s definitional. Say in 1933 you lived in Berlin. You own a concrete factory and this Hitler fellow is proposing to build an Autobahn if elected. You are thinking of voting Socialist Worker’s Party, a bit bugged about the Jew hate, I mean you’ve Jewish friends. You can vote Nazi as an attempt to pave some highway miles. I don’t think it makes you racist. But it does mean that bad shit happening to Jews is no real issue for you. Where one crosses the line to racist is when the “bad” gets really bad. Like if you vote Nazi knowing what Hitler was going to do- even though you only do it to sell cement- you devalue the lives of Jews so much that you are a racist.

Applied to Trump- he isn’t there, so maybe not so clear- but knowing you are also voting for banning immigration from certain countries and building a wall as Mexicans are criminals, puts you pretty far along a line of not caring about what happens to lots of people based upon what country they were born in. Does that make one racist? I think maybe?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

How much do they pay? Asking for a few friends. Bitcoin accepted.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Racist, misogynist and polluter are not "extreme terms."

And yeah, not putting a pretty high value on the equality of others humans does, indeed, make one a racist and a misogynist.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I had a priest tell me the entire left supported eugenics this weekend.

Look, I don't think we need to call everyone on the right a Nazi. Or Racist.

But if you let loose with anti-Semitic rants, openly support white nationalism, and call yourself a Nazi, well, I think it's ok to say you're a Nazi rather than one of the "good people on both sides".

And if you vote for people who have made it a priority to make it harder for people of color to vote, get housing, go to school, or get a job, that looks to bar people from the country based on race and religion, and whose highest public official, as well as many other officials, regularly and very publicly spout reprehensible racist rhetoric making it crystal clear they're a pack of racists, well, you know...

It's not like Republican candidates are particularly shy about their racism these days. The occasional one who speaks out against it usually gets a shunning.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Catholic Priests have no business commenting critically on anyone or anything right now. They have 0.00000 authority to level moral opprobrium.

It's much more effective to accurately assert that they are "Bigot enablers" or "Racist enablers." That's not an overstatement.

Agreed.

If one likes those aspects of the current GOP, he's a racist, or a bigot. If one truly believes Trump is the lesser of two evils, or just doesn't care much about the issue of racism or bigotry, he may be callous, cold, foolish, misguided, but he's not necessarily a racist or a bigot.

And calling him one only gives him an otherwise unavailable defense. Calling him an enabler of racists and bigots does not provide him with any such defense. It's accurate, and there's no way around it.

Groundskeeper Willie: Boy, you read my thoughts! You've got "the shinning"!
Bart: You mean "shining."
Willie: Shh... You wanna get sued?!

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Racist and misogynist are two of the nastiest labels in the language. And polluter can land your ass in jail, or owing massive fines. These are not equivalent to saying one has bad hair, poor taste in clothes, or shit for brains. These terms should only be used where the speaker is pretty damn certain they fit.

On your second point, suppose you were a serious conservative in the last election. Suppose as most of them did that all you cared about was SCOTUS. So you're faced with possibly losing control of the court for a generations - allowing a progressive majority to emerge, which in your view would ruin the fabric of the nation. Considering all of that, your deeply held belief that Trump is unfortunately the only one of the two candidates who will not destroy SCOTUS and by extension the country... Were you still obligated to vote for Hillary because of what Trump said about Mexicans and Muslims? In the laddering of priorities, is bigotry objectively higher than all other concerns? If so, where was that decided? Who decided it? Whose values informed that hierarchy of issues, and why does that hierarchy of issues objectively trump your hierarchy of issues, which puts SCOTUS above bigotry?

Trump must be the strangest of candidates for conservatives. You receive wonderful gifts, but for each one, there's something totally fucking awful happening elsewhere. "Congrats! You get a tax cut! Oh... and we'll be separating children from parents at the border." "You won SCOTUS control! ...And now we're going to have a trade war that's going to make a dog's breakfast of your portfolio."

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

i just found out the tax bill will save me nothing. You understand, I am high up in the 1% and even I got nothing.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

This is a truly toxic idea that's gained purchase as the go-to defense of racists and misogynists. Please don't help their cause by adopting it.

Accurately describing people's actions, views and blind spots is not "nasty," most especially in relation to ignoring and enabling them.

What issues are you using "ruin the fabric of the nation of the nation" as code for? Because the most prominent concern about the court is whether women have bodily autonomy, which is pretty easy to connect to misogyny.

Regardless, if you want to talk about where to rank specific concerns, you need to state them instead of hiding behind ambiguity.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Was it a "factor"? I mean, how could you say it wasn't, but Trump beat everyone else, too, and it's not like Jeb was otherwise about to close the deal.

The little Googling I did suggested that his criticism of Trump was on other issues. I didn't follow him closely.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Sebbi's Grandfather, in 1946 Germany:

"Don't call me anti-semitic! I just supported Hitler because he was going to take care of the gays."

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Am I on ignore?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

1. It’s not. If you continue using hyperbole recklessly, the words lose all magnitude. Sorry, that’s just the rule. Take it from a serial offender.

2. Calling anyone who votes GOP a racist or misogynist just for having so voted is dumb. And counterproductive.

3. I’m not using any issues. I’m describing what a passionate conservative might think.

4. I did state two in the hypothetical. One is desire to see a conservative SCOTUS. The other is to aggressively address racism. The right puts the former at the top, the left the latter.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I’m not in Croesus territory like you, but we’re well up there, and we’re not seeing anything.

But the bill must be helping somebody besides us affluent slackers. Somebody must like it and benefit from it, right?

ETA: I don’t think we’re seeing an increase. So maybe that is something. Avoidance of paying even more is a benefit of sorts.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It's not hyperbole. You have a personal definition of those words that's ridiculously narrow.

Also, you said they were "two of the nastiest labels in the language." This is a different (dumb) claim.

Why do conservatives desire a conservative SCOTUS, though? It's not for abstract reasons. First and foremost, they want a conservative court to scale back or eliminate abortion rights. They also want a court that won't uphold affirmative action, that will aggressively back the police, that will (and did) gut voting rights, that will uphold voter ID and gerrymandering, etc.

In short, much of why they want a "conservative" court is grounded in racism and misogyny.

Heck, even where they aren't explicitly motivated by those things - wanting jurists who are skeptical of environmental and other regulations - they're pining for courts that will help them maintain a racist and misogynistic status quo. Is there anywhere in the country where pollution and health and safety risks fall disproportionately on the affluent white neighborhoods? Nope.

Race and gender bias is everywhere, literally baked into how our society functions. Not caring about counteracting it is pretty much indistinguishable from preferring it that way.