In defending Facebook for having Trump supporter Peter Thiel on its board, Mark Zuckerberg said:
“We care deeply about diversity. That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It’s a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post visible only to Facebook employees, a photograph of which was shared on Hacker News on Tuesday.
“We can’t create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate,” Zuckerberg continued….
Absolutely. Diversity of thought is the most important kind — and too often, the kind people have the greatest trouble accepting. If you have a wide variety of skin colors and a perfect balance of gender, but everyone in your group thinks exactly alike, you have utterly failed to achieve a diverse result, and your group is weaker because of it.
Zuckerberg probably should have stopped there, though. He kind of lost me when he went on to say, “There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia or accepting sexual assault.”
Are there? At this point, it’s getting a little hard to see those “many reasons.” Hard for me, anyway; perhaps the vision of others is sharper.
So let’s assume those many reasons exist. There’s another problem here.
Diversity of thought, of ideas, is indeed critically important. It is essential, in a liberal democracy, to respect those who see things differently. (And to accept it if they win an election.)
But in 2016, we’re not experiencing a contest of ideas. We’ve gone well past that. We’re experiencing an election in which one of the major-party nominees is a man of demonstrably contemptible character, not just somebody you or I may disagree with on matters of policy.
And there’s a point at which, to the extent that we respect our own ability to reason and to form opinions that may or may not differ from the opinions of others, we have to make a judgment.
And in doing so, it’s legitimate for us to question Mr. Thiel’s judgment in continuing to support Mr. Trump despite shock after shock. And to question Mr. Zuckerberg’s for defending having someone of such questionable judgment on his board.
Mr. Thiel, and Mr. Zuckerberg, are entitled to their opinions. And we are entitled to ours…
Related Posts
And yes, I do see the apparent contradiction in what I’m saying here.
But when I read of what Zuckerberg said, my mind goes, “Well yes, but… but…”
This post reflects my attempt to follow where those ellipses lead. I’m not entirely satisfied with the result, but I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion…
I thought there would be more interest in this, which is why I posted it despite not being completely happy with my own argument. I’m surprised again…
My 2 cents worth on this – I agree that he should have stopped while he was ahead. How we balance significant flaws and virtues in a candidate has emerged as a compelling question in this election. Only the most blindly partisan would argue that a perfect candidate is, or ever has been, available. However this election raises unusually crucial questions for the survival of our form of government. Mr Zuckerberg would have done well to stay out of a minefield that he was not prepared to deal with.
Yes. I think the young man means well, but this is outside of his skill set. In fairness to him, successfully navigating a situation such as this is outside most people’s skill sets. But a good editor would have had him stop after his initial statement…
“However this election raises unusually crucial questions for the survival of our form of government. ”
When 40-% or more of the voters want Trump or Sanders, then perhaps the survival of our government as it exists currently SHOULD be on the table. They didn’t appear out of a vacuum. They are a response to a government that 3/4 of the country feels is headed in the wrong direction.
Change is good. And sometimes that change requires major upheaval.
Yep, there are a lot of mixed-up people in this country, many of whom are sufficiently alienated that they would pull the whole country down around their ears.
We had a similar problem in 1860. I remain on the side of those who believe, as Lincoln did then, that the American system, and the values upon which it is based, must endure…
By the way, just to remind everybody, things were not entirely black-and-white back in 1860. Yeah, there were folks willing to die and to kill to preserve slavery, and others who were willing to kill or die to preserve the union and/or end slavery.
But there were plenty of other attitudes. For instance, there were a lot of people (and initially, there were more of these than there were abolitionists) who simply wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery rather than end it. Then there were others who would have ended slavery if they could without cost, but didn’t agree that it was worth a bloody war tearing the country apart. Then there were the Southerners who weren’t particularly (or even at all) invested in slavery who actually thought of their state as their “country,” and believed it was their duty to defend it from “invasion.”
Ultimately the war was about preserving the Union, and whether that Union would uphold slavery or not. But among the population, there were all kinds of attitudes on those points…
My point being that when you’re actually living through a period of history, you can have all sorts of complicated attitudes toward what’s going on. Sometimes, for many people, full clarity only comes later…
But I digress…
“Full clarity only comes later.”
If ever.
Are you suggesting, Brad, that those who had the opinion that slavery shouldn’t be expanded to other areas were somehow making a reasonable point? Seriously? I guess that’s what someone who favors compromise over principles would suggest.
I certainly don’t read it that way. Brad only says that those attitudes existed.
But anyone who had that attitude was worse than any Trump supporter today. And anyone who owned slaves were among the worst people in American history.
I hope I’m not letting down Lynn for defending me, but of course they were making a reasonable point. It’s not a reasonable position to take in the Year of Our Lord 2016, because we have the luxury of living in a time when slavery is long past us, thanks to the brilliant leadership and moral vision of Abraham Lincoln.
I will hold Lincoln’s moral authority on this high above either yours or mine. And in fact, in 1860, the platform Lincoln ran on was that of containing slavery, and preventing new states from being slave states. He kept telling the South he wasn’t trying to take their slaves away, but they didn’t believe him, perhaps sensing that he would if he could. So they seceded, and set in motion the train of events that would eventually enable Lincoln to move far beyond his earlier position, and push for the complete abolition of slavery.
I consider Lincoln to be the finest, most deeply moral leader this country has been lucky enough to have. But I fear that to you, were you around at the time, he’d be one of those slimy, shifty politicians that you despise so much — the kind you’re always accusing Lindsey Graham of being.
Lincoln was a MASTER politician, better at it than anyone, including LBJ and FDR. He did not take a position until the public was ready for it, not a moment before. And thus he was effective. He waited until a series of victories made the Emancipation Proclamation politically feasible before issuing it — and it was still a risky move, even though it did NOT free the slaves.
And as you saw in the film “Lincoln,” even though he was at the very height of his powers with the war basically won, he had to pull out every trick in the book to get the 13th Amendment passed. There, he was stepping out ahead of much of the country, but he was out of time. He knew when the war was ended, he wouldn’t have the political leverage to get it done. It had taken that war and hundreds of thousands of lives to get to the point where it was barely, just barely, possible. It wasn’t an idea that would have gotten a hearing in 1860.
So yeah — back in 1860, preventing the spread of slavery was a very good position, in terms of political realities. I think you’re conveniently forgetting the enormous power Southern senators wielded — and wanted to keep on wielding, which is why they didn’t want new states to be free. These senators’ forebears had had their way of life built into the Constitution, officially recognized in our foundational document.
Keeping new states from going slave was a tough proposition, and a fight worth fighting — and yet that alone was SO controversial than when a man running on the platform won the election, the nation split apart.
You really need to put on some 19th-century ears when people are talking about the politics of that time. If you look at everything from the perspective of NOW, you’ll fail to understand what was going on…
“I hope I’m not letting down Lynn for defending me, but of course they were making a reasonable point. It’s not a reasonable position to take in the Year of Our Lord 2016, because we have the luxury of living in a time when slavery is long past us, thanks to the brilliant leadership and moral vision of Abraham Lincoln.”
There was and never will be a reasonable position regarding owning slaves. Those who called for limiting expansion were only slightly less immoral than those who owned slaves.
I assume you also agree that denying women the right to vote for more than a 150 years was a “reasonable position” and those who fought that were just as reasonable. Or those who fought for segregation or internment of Japanese citizens? Or those who wiped out the Native American population? There is no reasonable position in any of those cases no matter what the standards of the time were.
It’s very similar to those who fight against legalizing gay marriage in this day and age. There’s no reasonable position – just one based on bias against other people.
Dang. And I thought I had explained it pretty well…
You do realize that you’re referencing a movie to support your thesis? A movie with made up scenes and dialogue?
Doug, I used that because I seemed to recall that you and others had seen the movie. I’d have been happy to refer to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, an excellent, serious, in-depth work of history that inspired Spielberg, much as Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda.
I didn’t say anything that isn’t backed up by history. I simply used the movie as a shared experience illustrating my points…
By the way, going back to what I said here:
Note that I didn’t say I couldn’t think of ANY reasons. I just said I couldn’t think of many.
I can think of TWO reasons, or excuses, for voting for Trump that do not involve any of the things on that list. They are:
The first reason is insufficient to justify voting for him. The second is completely illegitimate.
Wait, I thought of one more:
3. Nihilism. Alienation from American politics and our system of government that is so extreme that the voter wishes to pull it all down around his own ears. Sort of the phenomenon Doug alluded to here, with his “change is good” argument.
Let’s explore #3: “Alienation from American politics and our system of government” as you say.
1. What are some of the causes of this contempt for government that has become so prevalent in the last (roughly) 15 years? This didn’t happen spontaneously. What brought it about?
2. What would have to change to persuade people who have this contempt for government to view government in a different light?
3. Will electing Hillary Clinton as President affect this positively or negatively?
Oh, I don’t think electing Hillary Clinton will help with that at ALL. We’re in for the nastiest four years we’ve yet seen. We’ll be nostalgic for the Bush and Obama years. Neither of those guys was actively HATED to the extent that she is when they first entered office.
We just have to elect her because that’s the only way to prevent the destruction and degradation of our system of government and all that it stands for.
We’re kind of like a pilot bailing out of a supersonic aircraft. It’s not something a sane person wants to do if he has options. But we have no options. We had all sorts of options a year ago, but Republican primary voters rejected them all, so here we are…
Yeah, I only answered 3, because I wasn’t sure how to answer 1 and 2.
It really depends on which alienated people you’re talking about. Some of them, I don’t know what their problem is (unrealistic expectations, perhaps?), and therefore I don’t know how to fix it.
For some others, I DO know why they’re alienated, and I find their attitudes contemptible. Nothing SHOULD be done to address their concerns because they’re illegitimate. The main thing we need to do is outvote them.
But then there are people who are alienated by the utter nastiness and dysfunction of partisan politics in Washington. I can’t blame them, although I can fault some of the ways they’re expressing their displeasure. I have a number of suggestions for their problem — completely reforming reapportionment, banning the drawing of lines to protect incumbents or their parties. Throw out the lines and start over, and let almost anyone other than partisans draw the lines.
There are other things we could do, such as trying the single primary that California is trying this year — everyone votes in the same primary, and the top two vote-getters go on to the general election, even if they’re both from the same party. I have great hopes for that, because it eliminates one of the greatest forces polarizing our politics — partisan incumbents’ fear of facing someone of their own party who is more extreme than they are in a primary.
But reapportionment reform is what I’d do first.
“We just have to elect her because that’s the only way to prevent the destruction and degradation of our system of government and all that it stands for.”
Can I just push back on that for a moment? Call it a Devil’s Advocate Position. [Full disclosure, I’m not voting for either person in the Presidential election.]
Let’s say that Donald Trump hypothetically becomes President. Will the world explode? No. He’ll go in with all sorts of wacky ideas and there will be things that he absolutely has no idea about. He’ll be a sort of babe in the woods on a lot of issues, because he’s never really had the inclination to think about them. He’ll be a rookie at politics, procedure, and how government works.
Now, our system of government is set up very well to have different branches check and balance each other. In fact, the whole point of our governmental system is to decentralize power and push it into competing branches. I think you’ve very much accurately assessed these two candidates by trying to decide: Which one will do the least harm?
If recent history is any guide, we all saw that the FBI and the DOJ had no interest in going after Hillary Clinton for behavior that, for anyone else, would be a definite one-way ticket to Leavenworth.
Personally Brad, I think you know her behavior was illegal, that she got special treatment, but you are loath to admit it, as you’ve made your decision that Hillary will do the least harm. (And I understand why you’re not beating the drum to have her charged. You’ve decided that she will do less harm than Trump, and you’re willing to sort of look the other way on her illegal activities to that end. That’s a perfectly logical position. I don’t share it, but I certainly understand it.)
However, whether folks admit it or not, it is true that the arms of the federal government are certainly more accepting of Hillary Clinton than of Donald Trump. Probably this is because Hillary Clinton’s views largely coincide with the worldview of the people who are career civil servants in the federal government. Also, consider that this influence, excuse-making, and looking the other way is taking place while she’s a mere candidate. Imagine what level it will rise to when she’s actually in full power as the chief executive. The fact is, people are more likely to look the other way for, and excuse the bad actions of, their friends. (For another example, the IRS weaponized itself under Obama against the Tea Party).
So which potential President will get more scrutiny vs. compliance from the vast other reaches of our federal government when he or she tries to do something that pushes out against the rule of law? If Trump engages in pay-for-play politics or money laundering, do you think the FBI or the DOJ will just sort of look the other way? If Trump wants to go to war, will he get the same scrutiny that Hillary would?
Isn’t it possible that the culture of Washington would see Trump as a foreign body and attack it like white blood cells all attack an infection? What if I told you that having Trump as President would actually be a vote for checks and balances and the rule of law?
I agree with you that Trump is horrible, uninformed, and willfully ignorant of what the role of President requires, and is he’s entirely unsuited for the job? What if then also said that I thought he would do less lasting damage in corrupting the respect for the rule of law than Hillary Clinton as President? What if I said that Trump would do the least harm, because the rest of the government would check his bad behavior, while on the other hand, the rest of the government would go along with Hillary’s bad behavior.
Eh, it doesn’t matter.
Hillary’s going to whup his behind on the electoral college map like Nelson whupped the French and Spanish at Trafalgar. (By the way, that was today – October 21, 1805).
Bryan, Doug has also articulated the “checks and balances” argument. Given all the resources at the hands of the POTUS I’m not convinced it would be nearly enough to keep a thin skinned narcissist in check. Besides did anyone watch the last debate? Hillary is going to be a phenomenal POTUS. Trump was her bitch. None of the GOP candidates were able to do that. You go nasty woman!
“Given all the resources at the hands of the POTUS I’m not convinced it would be nearly enough to keep a thin skinned narcissist in check.”
No further questions, Your Honor.
“Besides did anyone watch the last debate? Hillary is going to be a phenomenal POTUS. Trump was her bitch. None of the GOP candidates were able to do that. You go nasty woman!”
This is what the next four years are going to look like. Hillary’s supporters are going to cheer on the President making people “her bitch”. Boy, this sounds super.
I wish everyone here in the commentariat all the joy of the weekend. I’m off to do lots of fun things that have nothing to do with politics. I would also note that Brad has failed to rebut my Top 5 Sports Movies Ever, so I am declaring myself winner by default.
No, I’ve just been busy. I realize some people are stuck on boring blockade duty off Toulon, and therefore have little to do but sail back and forth in a straight line (and a competent 1st lieutenant like Pullings can certainly tend to that), but some of us are busy…
Now, to answer you more seriously…
I am appalled at the whole “You go nasty woman!” reaction from Hillary’s supporters.
The proper response to Trumps grossly inappropriate remark is to censure it, not celebrate it. Of course, I have problems with many strains of feminism, but the sort that motivates women to apply such bumper stickers as “Well-behaved women seldom make history” irks me more than most.
Bad behavior by anyone — such as, say, Donald Trump — is not to be encouraged. Nastiness — such as the nastiness that cause Trump to say, “Such a nasty woman” — is not to be encouraged, even ironically.
This is not just me being a stuffy fugitive from the Regency Period — which, of course, I am (Mr. Darcy would certainly find Donald Trump “insupportable,” and he would say the same about those who celebrate Mrs. Clinton making him her “bitch”). I’m truly, deeply concerned about the loss of civility in our society.
As David Brooks said on NPR this evening, “You know, I think moral communities are held together by etiquette, by manners, by a series of self-restraints, and if we don’t pay attention to those then politics becomes just a war of savagery, of all against all.”
Indeed, sir. Hear, hear!
See how happy I was in the Regency Period?
Capital, capital!
If only Mr. Trump were a) a gentleman, and b) promising to make ENGLAND great again, perhaps I could consider him.
“Hillary’s going to whup his behind on the electoral college map like Nelson whupped the French and Spanish at Trafalgar. (By the way, that was today – October 21, 1805).”
Oh, I hope so. Hillary needs to go straight at him, break his line, rake his decks from fore and aft and board him in the smoke.
And she’s just the hawk to do it.
That’s one of the ironies of this election. The voters she relies on most, liberal Democrats, can’t STAND the things I think are her best qualities: she’s a hawk (more of a neocon than any Republican who ran this past year, with the exception of Lindsey Graham), and deep down she’s a Third Wayer who believes in free trade. (Sure, go ahead and tinker with TPP so you can say you addressed the flaws you so recently discovered, then ram that baby through…)
It’s kind of like the way I saw Obama, in contrast to the way the antiwar left saw him. I saw him as a guy who would chase bin Laden into the heart of Pakistan, and eliminate the heads of the Five Families in one… wait, that part was a movie…
Anyway, even though I preferred McCain, that’s one reason I didn’t mind so much that Obama won..
Whoa, I was more strident than I remembered in that 2007 column I referenced above. No wonder Bud and Doug think I’m such a warmonger.
(I enjoyed reading it, though.)
If you aren’t voting for “either person” then, pray tell, for what, or whom, are you voting? Your choice is yours, but “sitting it out” somehow sounds out of character.
It’s quite amazing that wanting a government that balances its budget, offers freedom of choice in marriage, owning guns, and using marijuana, simplifies its tax system, stops fighting unwinnable wars, etc. is called nihilism. You prefer the insanity of bureaucracy, controlling people, and being the world’s policeman. That’s working out swell, isn’t it?
Our government is the one you want. It’s the one you have endorsed, repeatedly. Be proud.
Oh, I am. I love my country. I don’t like what the parties have done to it over the past 40 years, but I’m very proud of my country.
You’re deflecting. Which of my statements about what it’d like to see happen in this country are nihilistic? Which of the libertarian platform issues promote nihilism? I’ll trade freedom and sanity over the mess we have now. That’s not nihilism no matter how many times you misuse that word.
We’re a prosperous nation with lots of opportunity. Not sure I get all this gloom and doom. To hear Doug go on and on I have to assume he’s living in a cockroach infested cardboard box. Sure we have issues but fewer than than a Gary Johnson led America.
Yes, Bud. THANK you…
I have prospered in spite of over taxation and regulation. I could do more if the government would do less. Try running your own business some time if you have the guts to.
I think it’s fascinating to see folks condemning Trump in such a very strident manner yet fail to grasp the big picture of the Trump phenomenon. Trump is not just some rogue gadfly trying to become president to further some narrow agenda. We’ve had candidates like that in the past such as Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Those are all men who were unable to persuade the adherents of one the major parties to support their efforts. These men were forced to embark on a futile mission to win the presidency as a third party or independent candidate. None came close to winning. That’s because these men did not have a broad enough coalition of supporters to garner much attention but were focused on some single issue. Thurmond and Wallace were all about segregation. Perot focused on the large sucking sound. Nader came from a background focused on corporate abuse. That’s a positive attribute but one that can only carry you so far. Just ask Bernie.
Trump is notably different. He captured the attention of a majority of Republican voters. His message, gloomy and inaccurate as it is, resonates with Republicans. In effect that makes Trump the face of the Republican party. He is the real deal, not some fly by night shyster but rather an authentic Republican stripped of the facade of pretending to care about the welfare of the nation as a whole. Rather he is the man behind the curtain who embodies the heart and sole of the party of the rich. Trump’s America is about fear and manipulation of emotions that view different people, Mexicans, Muslims, gays and strong women as enemies of the “great” America that we somehow lost. This view is the real view of the Republican Party. As proof I offer Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They cry crocodile tears of their candidate’s many missteps not because they find his remarks offensive but rather because they make it harder for their party to win. And they still nominally support him. They don’t want their true colors exposed. They would rather continue the phony pretense of actually giving a crap about average Americans.
Donald Trump has done a valuable service to this country if people can actually open their eyes and see it. Trump is no aberration, he’s the real Republican deal stripped of the pretense. He is the face of the GOP and the sooner we understand the true disgusting nature of this diabolical party the sooner we can rid the body politic of this vile organization. People like Brad understand the odious nature of Donald J. Trump. Hopefully good people can understand that Trump is the tip of GOP iceberg waiting in the North Atlantic to bring down this great country. This election is more than just one man’s boorish personality. It is about the direction we take as a nation. Hopefully that direction will be away from the GOP iceberg.
I think it’s fascinating — and scary — to see folks describing Trump as a Republican as though THAT’s the problem, completely ignoring the unique threat that he poses to this country.
It is ESSENTIAL that everyone come to understand that this election is NOT about parties, but about a unique neofascist casting a dark shadow across the land. We absolutely need as many Republicans as possible to see that, and join the rest of us in turning out in droves to reject him.
Mere defeat — what you can accomplish with Democrats and few independents — is not enough. We need as many Republicans as possible to vote against him, to deliver the kind of defeat that will destroy Trumpism.
And here comes Bud, again using language to make Republicans get defensive and close ranks…
It may be comforting to believe that a crushing defeat of Trump will ” destroy Trumpisn,” but it won’t. As journalist Mark Danner wrote recently:
“If Donald J. Trump is not elected president of the United States on November 8, we will owe this not to some triumph of the superior American system or to the eloquent presentation of a progressive alternative but to the fact that this singularly offensive man offended too many voters, especially white, college-educated women. It will not be because he was rendered unelectable by virtue of his lies and race-baiting and immigrant-bashing and demagoguery.
On the contrary. Trump embodies grisly aspects of our politics that are not new but that, on him, are starkly illuminated. What are these? That much of our politics in this increasingly diverse country pivots on the hateful fulcrum of race, of racial fear and xenophobia and antagonism toward the Other, and that this has only grown in power and ugliness since the rise of Barack Obama and his coalition. That in vital matters of gender and sexuality and marriage much of the politics of the presiding culture is furiously rejected by a significant minority of the country as a “politically correct” and immoral imposition. That in the aftermath of a severe economic crisis—and after decades of economic stagnation for most Americans—tens of millions of voters feel so abandoned by the system that they offer their full-throated cheers to a candidate pledging to wholly dismantle it and put “in jail” his opponent. That the electoral system as it has evolved over that time and especially in the wake of such decisions as Citizens United has become starkly, shabbily, and spectacularly corrupt. And finally that entertainment and money in the grossest sense play a far more important part in our politics than any attention to public policy, and that the commercial press, particularly the broadcast press, battens on that reality to an increasingly shameless degree.
In the wake of Donald Trump all these tendencies will persist and perhaps—during a Clinton presidency—flourish, awaiting the next opportunistic figure who demonstrates the ruthlessness and skill to exploit them, and the steady-handedness, perhaps, to avoid needlessly alienating quite so much of the electorate. It is a grim and echoing reality, and one that we ignore at our peril, that many of Trump’s most egregious faults as a candidate are by no means intrinsic to his politics. He could be playing the ragged John the Baptist to a less outrageous and thus more dangerous savior to come.”
“That the electoral system as it has evolved over that time and especially in the wake of such decisions as Citizens United has become starkly, shabbily, and spectacularly corrupt.
Please explain the question presented and the opinion of the Court in Citizens United v. FEC.
Address your cross examination to Mr. Danner.
Who is that?
Referred to in Bill’s previous comment…
As a usual rule, I no longer get irritated or upset over bud’s comments but this is different and I lost respect him or his words at all after this particular post. They serve no purpose other than to further the divide between the ideologies of the two parties and keep the chasm wide open, even opening it more than ever.
“And here comes Bud, again using language to make Republicans get defensive and close ranks…” Damn right!!!
Years ago I disengaged myself from identity political parties because of the rancor and discord created by both no matter how enamored the “bud’s” are of Democrats and how freaking great he believes they are and they are the only answer to our problems. The same is true for the other side as well. I get tired of the Hannity, Limbaugh, and other so-called conservatives jawing and braying like jackasses over any and every issue they find offensive or don’t agree with. Unfortunately, an industry has sprung up and the sycophants using the media to spawn more and more division and hatred are doing so more for profit than true ideology. I have no more respect for Sean Hannity than I do for Al Sharpton or any other so-called political pundit spewing their lies about each other for the sake of the bottom line for Fox, NBC, Turner, CBS, or any other media outlet competing for advertiser dollars. If anything, the devoted listeners are nothing but willing dupes who live and die by their favorite host or writer.
Yeah bud, keep on with your insulting, offensive and cultish commentary about a party that simply does not as a whole embody the nastiness of your inflammatory commentary. Yes, there are some in the party that fit your comments but for the most part at the Main Street level, they don’t fit your narrative. The same can be said about the Democrat critics who use the same trash verbiage to describe them.
My parents were staunch Democrats and if anyone would say to my face the same thing you said about Republicans in general, black eyes and bloody noses would be sure to follow because of who my parents were. As the old saying goes, “those are fighting words”. It is fortunate you can hide behind a keyboard and spout the same anger and hatred you accuse Republicans of doing without having to say it to their face. I know too many Republicans who are good, kind, fair, and decent people who are not anywhere close to being covered with the broad paint brush you used to describe “all” Republicans.
As for Trump, he is beyond anything I have ever been witness to since becoming a voter. He is a phony, liar, deceitful jackass, braggart, sexist jerk, and is no more capable of leading this country than a trained chimp. He doesn’t know when to shut his mouth or when he is defeated. Threatening to sue the women accusers is the defense of a coward and IMHO, nothing but a confirmation he did what he has been accused of doing. And I don’t have much more respect for Clinton either. The difference is that Trump has been accused and nothing proven – yet. Hillary actively defended Bill Clinton and went after the women with a vengeance after it was proven he did what he was accused of doing and now she has the nerve to declare she is the champion of women who have been assaulted. The only redeeming factor is that at least she does have some experience whether it is useful or not is another thing. Same sexual predator pea pod, two different peas.