8 ms·

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

oh_sigh 10y ago
Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.
  - einarvollset 10y ago
    Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      65 percent Clinton to 29 percent Trump is a pretty strong margin regardless of how it compares to the previous election.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      What point are you making here? That you can find a subset within a minority demographic that voted for Trump? If so, that proves nothing. Just look at the graphs here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump... White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.
      - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
        Minorities always reject republicans. The argument is whether Trump did better with minorities given he is a republican.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yes it does. The fact that Trump did slightly better than Romney doesn't alter the fact that he still lost big with that demographic.
      - googlryas 10y ago
        Yes, but it brings into question the 'hateful rhetoric' narrative, when it appears that minorities did not perceive it as such(at least, based on how they voted). If minorities viewed Trumps statements as dangerous to them, wouldn't you expect fewer minorities to vote for Trump than, say, Romney?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > If minorities viewed Trumps statements as dangerous to them, wouldn't you expect fewer minorities to vote for Trump than, say, Romney? Not necessarily if they also viewed Clinton far less favorably than Obama; support of one party by any group in one election vs. another isn't a sign of absolute support for that party's candidate, it's a sign of relative support of that candidate compared to the alternative.
        googlryas 10y ago
        So...just because Clinton isn't as great as Obama, that leads minorities to vote for someone who "obviously hates them"(as per the anti-Trump narrative goes)?
  - strken 10y ago
    So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e... Check out the swings in the race section. If there hadn't been a massive swing towards him from blacks and hispanics, he might not have won.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      Obama was an unusually charismatic candidate who got 93% of the Black vote in 2012 and 96% in 2008. There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that. Hispanic turnout did turn out a bit below expectations, but not by much. Note that Hillary got completely crushed in the "White w/o college degree" category, which is a much larger demographic. And despite that Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She did pretty well across the board and in an election as close as this one almost any single thing could have flipped the outcome.
      - oh_sigh 10y ago
        Interesting that you attribute Obama getting 93/96% of the black vote to his...charisma. Yes, I'm sure that was it. > There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that. So, black people vote for a "charismatic" candidate, but when they are left with a mediocre candidate and a candidate that (as is argued) hates them, they decide "Hey, the guy that hates me is better than someone who isn't so charismatic"?
  - cpursley 10y ago
    > Minorities on average earn less Tell that to Asian Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
- danieldk 10y ago
  But the choice was not racist+job or non-racist+job. Also, let's keep in mind that a demographic within the population with the highest unemployment will not be helped at all. I realize that the democratic candidate was less than ideal.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    People keep saying that the democratic candidate was less than ideal. So what would have been ideal? Who or what would have been your dream candidate for the 2016 election?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  That wasn't the questions. It was: Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job? Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents were from Syria. Does having a job mean that my bi-racial niece and nephew have to deal with alt-right led government? Does it mean that I have to hide the fact that I'm bisexual? It isn't enough that I have food and shelter. I want others to have the same, otherwise, I'm simply sharing and having less on whatever paltry sum the overlords will pay out. It isn't like there is a real social safety net to rely on.
  - 1337biz 10y ago
    The interesting thing is about voter priorities. We can always argue about different shades of grey. But taking for example your list, I would love to see 1/0 data where people had to make the ultimate choice - prefer to hide the sexuality or have no job. Sometimes forcing people to make a choice and not hiding behind relatives could open the true priorities.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      "sometimes forcing people to make a choice and not hiding behind relatives could open the true priorities" This could be quite interesting. I'm sure I have picked up on some of this now -I'm an immigrant. My spouse knows all this stuff about me, and I was able to let go of some of the familial baggage. It is really freeing, at least for me. But I don't know if that would be the case other places. I'm in Norway, and the culture tends to be (publicly) accepting of folks and treating folks as equals. Obviously this has its limits and there are some downsides. Discrimination and racism persist nonetheless. The king, though, puts out inclusive statements and it makes me feel better about being here. I'd love to know if such things were the norm or not - and I'd love to see that data.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    And those questions are making the big assumption that the person claiming they can bring back those jobs will actually be able to. You can't fight economics...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The latter, and I know plenty about poverty. Economic conditions are transient and tend to improve due to technology, oppressive governments tend to consistently make things worse for everyone. Why would I possibly want to be governed by the sort of person who is prejudiced against me?
generalledger 10y ago
The point is that, to the voters, there were many unsavory characteristics of each candidate. And from a strategy perspective, it is a mistake to treat the people you need to appeal to as if they personally embody the most unsavory characteristics. If Trump supporters want to appeal to the left, they shouldn't assume all Hillary supporters are liars, in favor of obstruction of justice, and want to go to war with Russia. Likewise, if you want to appeal to Trump supporters, which is what you'll have to do to get their votes in the next election, you're not going to get very far by calling them racists, homophobes, etc.
innocentoldguy 10y ago
I didn't vote for Donald, because I think he sucks, but what other non-racist option was there? Hillary? Hillary exhibits just as much racism as Donald does; just in a different way. Hillary, along with many members of her party, are paternalistic racists. In other words, they hide their racism behind agendas that treat minorities and other groups like children. They feel that they are superior and better than other people, and so they talk down to them and coddle them in their campaigns and policies. It is condescending, and indeed a type of racism. If we REALLY want to solve these sorts of problems, we need to: 1. Stop playing team sports with our votes, and be willing to look for the best options in third-party candidates. Sure, we may lose a few elections initially, but if we keep pushing, eventually we'll win. We can never achieve greatness by settling for the "evil of two lessers," as we did on both sides of the political fence last year. 2. Force our elected officials to stick to the checks and balances of the Constitution, and eliminate things like executive orders, which are in place solely to short-circuit Congress. 3. Get new blood in Washington. Stop voting for morons like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell; or better yet, push for term limits and the elimination of exorbitant retirement benefits for these public servants. We cannot "drain the swamp," as Donald likes to say, until we, as voters, stop defecating into it with our suffrage. The government is one of the biggest hinderances for minorities, and the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans, if not more so. If we're going to fix this issue, we need to fix the corruption in Washington, as well as in our states and local communities.
- wolf550e 10y ago
  r: term limits for legislators. California tried that. Turns out representatives without experience at drafting and passing legislation rely on lobbyists with the requisite experience, and the power shifts from nominally accountable representatives to unaccountable lobbyists.
  - innocentoldguy 10y ago
    How is that any different than now? At least the public-facing oligarchy would change every few years.
buyx 10y ago
Agreed. Trump clearly stated that he was going to institute a Muslim ban and didn't rule out a Muslim registry when asked by reporters, so this policy shouldn't be a surprise to those who voted for him. Germans have accepted collective guilt for the Holocaust, and have come to terms with that, even though a minority first voted Hitler into power-and, as a consequence of this collective acknowledgement, popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture. In contrast, a large proportion of South African whites tend to equivocate when asked if Apartheid, which was voted for for generations of whites, before they voted it out, was bad (spoiler alert: it was evil, and I'm not going to relitigate why on HN again). The Truth and Reconcilliation Comission allowed for those who committed physical acts of violence to confess their crimes in return for forgiveness, but the broader plunder and evil of apartheid remains unacknowleged by much of white South Africa (and its diaspora), and it means that racism still permeates SA society. Working class people are hurting all over the world. But the economic pain felt by Germans in Weimar Germany didn't excuse the Holocaust. They were voting for anti-Jewish violence, as much as they were voting for VW Beetles and autobahns. Similarly, the suffering of Boers at the hands of the British didn't excuse Apartheid. I'm not equating the scale or scope of Trump's actions with the Holocaust or with Apartheid, but I do think that those who chose to vote for him did so with their eyes wide open, and knew what he stood for. Trying to forgive them, or excuse their actions before they acknowledge their own culpability is not healthy for anyone.
MichaelGG 10y ago
>racist Explain how the EO is racist. Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. And homophobe? A gay man spoke at the RNC to huge applause (even made a comment on how getting upset over transgender bathroom use is pointless). These kind of careless accusations just make everyone ignore real charges of racism.
- buyx 10y ago
  Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. Indeed."Muslim" is not a race. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted" or "discriminatory" not "racist"? If we are going to be splitting hairs: are Persians a race, or are they an ethnicity?
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    You can stop being a muslim, you can stop being a christian (I know, I did) and you can stop being a socialist. You can't stop being whatever ethnicity you were when you were born. Thus this is actually a worse order than a straight out ban on muslims from these countries would be.
    - myowncrapulence 10y ago
      You can stop being male. Is it ok to ban you from the country? It's acceptable to ban ideas and religion from countries? Holy shit what happened to America..
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Where in the EO does Muslim come into play? And of course it's discriminatory! That's sort of, like, the whole point. All the existing immigration policies are discriminatory. That's why I (Canadian) can go basically anywhere, but someone from Central America can't.
    - buyx 10y ago
      Where in the EO does Muslim come into play? So Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the US. He then instituted a blanket ban on entry from 7 overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Are we splitting hairs again implying that these two things are a coincidence because the wording of the EO happened to avoid a blatantly unconstitutional formulation?
strken 10y ago
Who do you vote for if you're a working class parent and you really, really, really don't want your children to earn less than you did at their age, but would prefer not to vote for a leader that the media seems to think is racist and homophobic? Because that's a tough decision to make. You might decide that the media is wrong, you might decide that your kids are the most important thing, or you might decide that principles are worth more. Either way, it's not simple, it's very complicated.
- j2kun 10y ago
  You invest in education, obviously. Is there any other method that works? Get rid of your television and replace your cable news subscription with a library card.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  You are also assuming that the racist homophobe will do anything to make sure your children earn more than you did at their age.
shitgoose 10y ago
racist homophobes They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?
- tomjen3 10y ago
  The rabbi at his inauguration? His jewish daughter?
  - gdilla 10y ago
    his anti-semite top advisor, Bannon?
  - shitgoose 10y ago
    not good enough. i still think he should be an antisemite. edit: don't let little things like jewish son-in-law, daughter converting to judaism and inauguration rabbi fool you.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Kushner. A good chance that he'll use the American veto in the UN in support of Israel.
  - shitgoose 10y ago
    how does it stop Trump from being an antisemite?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      It stops him as long as it suits him.
- pcardh0 10y ago
  I missed how Trump is a homophobe. Seriously, is there evidence for this or is it just a general insult thrown out when someone does something you don't like?

oh_sigh 10y ago

Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power? I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

gizmo 10y ago
Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.
- einarvollset 10y ago
  Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    65 percent Clinton to 29 percent Trump is a pretty strong margin regardless of how it compares to the previous election.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    What point are you making here? That you can find a subset within a minority demographic that voted for Trump? If so, that proves nothing. Just look at the graphs here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump... White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.
    - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
      Minorities always reject republicans. The argument is whether Trump did better with minorities given he is a republican.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yes it does. The fact that Trump did slightly better than Romney doesn't alter the fact that he still lost big with that demographic.
    - googlryas 10y ago
      Yes, but it brings into question the 'hateful rhetoric' narrative, when it appears that minorities did not perceive it as such(at least, based on how they voted). If minorities viewed Trumps statements as dangerous to them, wouldn't you expect fewer minorities to vote for Trump than, say, Romney?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > If minorities viewed Trumps statements as dangerous to them, wouldn't you expect fewer minorities to vote for Trump than, say, Romney? Not necessarily if they also viewed Clinton far less favorably than Obama; support of one party by any group in one election vs. another isn't a sign of absolute support for that party's candidate, it's a sign of relative support of that candidate compared to the alternative.
        googlryas 10y ago
        So...just because Clinton isn't as great as Obama, that leads minorities to vote for someone who "obviously hates them"(as per the anti-Trump narrative goes)?
- strken 10y ago
  So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e... Check out the swings in the race section. If there hadn't been a massive swing towards him from blacks and hispanics, he might not have won.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Obama was an unusually charismatic candidate who got 93% of the Black vote in 2012 and 96% in 2008. There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that. Hispanic turnout did turn out a bit below expectations, but not by much. Note that Hillary got completely crushed in the "White w/o college degree" category, which is a much larger demographic. And despite that Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She did pretty well across the board and in an election as close as this one almost any single thing could have flipped the outcome.
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      Interesting that you attribute Obama getting 93/96% of the black vote to his...charisma. Yes, I'm sure that was it. > There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that. So, black people vote for a "charismatic" candidate, but when they are left with a mediocre candidate and a candidate that (as is argued) hates them, they decide "Hey, the guy that hates me is better than someone who isn't so charismatic"?
- cpursley 10y ago
  > Minorities on average earn less Tell that to Asian Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
danieldk 10y ago
But the choice was not racist+job or non-racist+job. Also, let's keep in mind that a demographic within the population with the highest unemployment will not be helped at all. I realize that the democratic candidate was less than ideal.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  People keep saying that the democratic candidate was less than ideal. So what would have been ideal? Who or what would have been your dream candidate for the 2016 election?
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
That wasn't the questions. It was: Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job? Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents were from Syria. Does having a job mean that my bi-racial niece and nephew have to deal with alt-right led government? Does it mean that I have to hide the fact that I'm bisexual? It isn't enough that I have food and shelter. I want others to have the same, otherwise, I'm simply sharing and having less on whatever paltry sum the overlords will pay out. It isn't like there is a real social safety net to rely on.
- 1337biz 10y ago
  The interesting thing is about voter priorities. We can always argue about different shades of grey. But taking for example your list, I would love to see 1/0 data where people had to make the ultimate choice - prefer to hide the sexuality or have no job. Sometimes forcing people to make a choice and not hiding behind relatives could open the true priorities.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    "sometimes forcing people to make a choice and not hiding behind relatives could open the true priorities" This could be quite interesting. I'm sure I have picked up on some of this now -I'm an immigrant. My spouse knows all this stuff about me, and I was able to let go of some of the familial baggage. It is really freeing, at least for me. But I don't know if that would be the case other places. I'm in Norway, and the culture tends to be (publicly) accepting of folks and treating folks as equals. Obviously this has its limits and there are some downsides. Discrimination and racism persist nonetheless. The king, though, puts out inclusive statements and it makes me feel better about being here. I'd love to know if such things were the norm or not - and I'd love to see that data.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  And those questions are making the big assumption that the person claiming they can bring back those jobs will actually be able to. You can't fight economics...
anigbrowl 10y ago
The latter, and I know plenty about poverty. Economic conditions are transient and tend to improve due to technology, oppressive governments tend to consistently make things worse for everyone. Why would I possibly want to be governed by the sort of person who is prejudiced against me?

generalledger 10y ago

The point is that, to the voters, there were many unsavory characteristics of each candidate. And from a strategy perspective, it is a mistake to treat the people you need to appeal to as if they personally embody the most unsavory characteristics. If Trump supporters want to appeal to the left, they shouldn't assume all Hillary supporters are liars, in favor of obstruction of justice, and want to go to war with Russia. Likewise, if you want to appeal to Trump supporters, which is what you'll have to do to get their votes in the next election, you're not going to get very far by calling them racists, homophobes, etc.

innocentoldguy 10y ago

I didn't vote for Donald, because I think he sucks, but what other non-racist option was there? Hillary? Hillary exhibits just as much racism as Donald does; just in a different way. Hillary, along with many members of her party, are paternalistic racists. In other words, they hide their racism behind agendas that treat minorities and other groups like children. They feel that they are superior and better than other people, and so they talk down to them and coddle them in their campaigns and policies. It is condescending, and indeed a type of racism. If we REALLY want to solve these sorts of problems, we need to: 1. Stop playing team sports with our votes, and be willing to look for the best options in third-party candidates. Sure, we may lose a few elections initially, but if we keep pushing, eventually we'll win. We can never achieve greatness by settling for the "evil of two lessers," as we did on both sides of the political fence last year. 2. Force our elected officials to stick to the checks and balances of the Constitution, and eliminate things like executive orders, which are in place solely to short-circuit Congress. 3. Get new blood in Washington. Stop voting for morons like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell; or better yet, push for term limits and the elimination of exorbitant retirement benefits for these public servants. We cannot "drain the swamp," as Donald likes to say, until we, as voters, stop defecating into it with our suffrage. The government is one of the biggest hinderances for minorities, and the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans, if not more so. If we're going to fix this issue, we need to fix the corruption in Washington, as well as in our states and local communities.

wolf550e 10y ago
r: term limits for legislators. California tried that. Turns out representatives without experience at drafting and passing legislation rely on lobbyists with the requisite experience, and the power shifts from nominally accountable representatives to unaccountable lobbyists.
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  How is that any different than now? At least the public-facing oligarchy would change every few years.

buyx 10y ago

Agreed. Trump clearly stated that he was going to institute a Muslim ban and didn't rule out a Muslim registry when asked by reporters, so this policy shouldn't be a surprise to those who voted for him. Germans have accepted collective guilt for the Holocaust, and have come to terms with that, even though a minority first voted Hitler into power-and, as a consequence of this collective acknowledgement, popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture. In contrast, a large proportion of South African whites tend to equivocate when asked if Apartheid, which was voted for for generations of whites, before they voted it out, was bad (spoiler alert: it was evil, and I'm not going to relitigate why on HN again). The Truth and Reconcilliation Comission allowed for those who committed physical acts of violence to confess their crimes in return for forgiveness, but the broader plunder and evil of apartheid remains unacknowleged by much of white South Africa (and its diaspora), and it means that racism still permeates SA society. Working class people are hurting all over the world. But the economic pain felt by Germans in Weimar Germany didn't excuse the Holocaust. They were voting for anti-Jewish violence, as much as they were voting for VW Beetles and autobahns. Similarly, the suffering of Boers at the hands of the British didn't excuse Apartheid. I'm not equating the scale or scope of Trump's actions with the Holocaust or with Apartheid, but I do think that those who chose to vote for him did so with their eyes wide open, and knew what he stood for. Trying to forgive them, or excuse their actions before they acknowledge their own culpability is not healthy for anyone.

MichaelGG 10y ago

>racist Explain how the EO is racist. Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. And homophobe? A gay man spoke at the RNC to huge applause (even made a comment on how getting upset over transgender bathroom use is pointless). These kind of careless accusations just make everyone ignore real charges of racism.

buyx 10y ago
Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. Indeed."Muslim" is not a race. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted" or "discriminatory" not "racist"? If we are going to be splitting hairs: are Persians a race, or are they an ethnicity?
- tomjen3 10y ago
  You can stop being a muslim, you can stop being a christian (I know, I did) and you can stop being a socialist. You can't stop being whatever ethnicity you were when you were born. Thus this is actually a worse order than a straight out ban on muslims from these countries would be.
  - myowncrapulence 10y ago
    You can stop being male. Is it ok to ban you from the country? It's acceptable to ban ideas and religion from countries? Holy shit what happened to America..
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Where in the EO does Muslim come into play? And of course it's discriminatory! That's sort of, like, the whole point. All the existing immigration policies are discriminatory. That's why I (Canadian) can go basically anywhere, but someone from Central America can't.
  - buyx 10y ago
    Where in the EO does Muslim come into play? So Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the US. He then instituted a blanket ban on entry from 7 overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Are we splitting hairs again implying that these two things are a coincidence because the wording of the EO happened to avoid a blatantly unconstitutional formulation?

strken 10y ago

Who do you vote for if you're a working class parent and you really, really, really don't want your children to earn less than you did at their age, but would prefer not to vote for a leader that the media seems to think is racist and homophobic? Because that's a tough decision to make. You might decide that the media is wrong, you might decide that your kids are the most important thing, or you might decide that principles are worth more. Either way, it's not simple, it's very complicated.

j2kun 10y ago
You invest in education, obviously. Is there any other method that works? Get rid of your television and replace your cable news subscription with a library card.
infinite8s 10y ago
You are also assuming that the racist homophobe will do anything to make sure your children earn more than you did at their age.

shitgoose 10y ago

racist homophobes They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?

tomjen3 10y ago
The rabbi at his inauguration? His jewish daughter?
- gdilla 10y ago
  his anti-semite top advisor, Bannon?
- shitgoose 10y ago
  not good enough. i still think he should be an antisemite. edit: don't let little things like jewish son-in-law, daughter converting to judaism and inauguration rabbi fool you.
jacquesm 10y ago
Kushner. A good chance that he'll use the American veto in the UN in support of Israel.
- shitgoose 10y ago
  how does it stop Trump from being an antisemite?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    It stops him as long as it suits him.
pcardh0 10y ago
I missed how Trump is a homophobe. Seriously, is there evidence for this or is it just a general insult thrown out when someone does something you don't like?