So you’re a racist and a sexist.
Steve Huck
284

Attempting to penetrate the brilliant idiocy of your provocative verbal attack, I had to read it over a few times, trying to break it down by phrases and sentences, and finally coming to the conclusion that the content of your response was nothing more than a provocative arrogant play on words and labels. LOL?? You say LOL? Did you think that you stated something funny, or witty? Sure, you showed how to diabolically twist word meanings and misconstrue group labels and interrelationships into a pointless attack against someone who actually had something worthwhile to say, and she said it very well, truthfully, and intelligently. You on the other hand are another Breitbart clown who thinks he has a superior intellect because he is clever at obscuring the truth, and adroit at intentional misrepresentations posing as fact. If you have to posit fraudulent ideas and perspectives to win a debate or an election, then it doesn’t make you an enviable winner; it makes you a pathetic loser. Just as any con artist may profit from his dishonesty, he loses those qualities which are typically considered priceless, like integrity. He undermines his own well-being when he exploits others, just as you undermine yourself when you cheat others or defraud them with your perversions of deceit and lies. The author claims that he is and was a Democrat. That claim is highly suspect. More likely, he is and was a Republican like yourself who is practicing his con on readers. All the baloney indignation about emails containing classified info is a phony issue. The same can be said about the other claims of “rigging the election against Sanders” and the attacks on party leaders who dared to have their own favorite candidate. All these attack points are trivial, meaningless, if not outright lies. Talk about Clinton attempting to buy the election with corporate money? Get real. In the first place, corporate money has been exerting influence on elections since day one. Anyone who finds that objectionable should never vote Republican. Classified? Lack of transparency is usually a much bigger problem than a slip of some minor fact which might be classified. This is more deceit by Republicans by claiming the problem, if it exists, is bigger than it actually is. On every issue they have raised, it is a case of a very dirty pot calling the kettle black. They won the election primarily by deceiving voters, by either distracting attention away from much larger shortcomings of Republicans, or inflating or misrepresenting alleged misgivings about Democrats. Try to get any Republican admit that Reagan created huge national debt, and weakened the economy by catering to the wealthy. Corporate money got him elected twice, while workers’ pay rapidly declined. There is a wealth of historical evidence showing conclusively that Republicans are terrible at determining the nation’s economy, and worse at creating social policies and laws. To know these facts takes time to read reliable sources, whereas most voters decide on the basis of a few rhetorical slogans around cutting taxes and creating jobs and reducing social support. What Republicans preach and offer is mostly a myth based on false ideas that do not compute. Macro-economics involves math and principles which defy analysis using basic grade-school definitions. Similarly, social policies based on greater personal success by denying opportunities to others, especially those who are already economically disadvantaged, is a form of fool’s gold. It may sound good and reasonable and logical, but the real world and real people are not so simple. It is not possible to prove these statements in such a short space. If you want the proof, you have to do your own digging. Anyone who votes for a third-party candidate, especially in a close election, might as well vote for communism, fascism, or anarchy of the worst kind. All one need do is look at what has happened when there are many candidates for one office. The greater the number of candidates, the greater the certainty that an inferior, unsuitable candidate will win — someone objectionable to the majority of voters. Argentina’s history some 50 years ago is a good example.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.