Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 23, 2019

Over the past few months, we’ve seen nearly the entire Republican Party coalesce around the rhetoric that Donald Trump pioneered just a few months ago: one massive hyperventilation over immigration, trade, and above all, Islam. No matter how much they’ve disavowed Mr. Trump’s language — some of them haven’t at all — nearly every Republican governor and every candidate for president echoed Trump’s language on monitoring or excluding Syrian refugees  after the Paris terrorist attacks. Most followed suit when it came to a religious test on domestic surveillance.

Since announcing his candidacy in June, Mr. Trump has claimed that Muslims celebrated 9/11 by the thousands in New York and New Jersey and that “Islam hates us.” Trump has used Islamophobic rhetoric to justify his policy proposals, which include a Muslim travel ban, a national registry to identify Muslim-­Americans, and greater governmental surveillance on Muslims, including on mosques, in the style of the NYPD.

Trump’s language has found plenty of willing ears. According to a study from the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of Republican voters support blunt statements about Islamic extremism. It’s no surprise that Trump’s message has gained a lot of traction among his party’s base.

While the motives behind Trump’s statements are dubious, the consequences are indubitable. In Virginia, a Muslim civil engineer was publicly shamed at a local government meeting, as the crowd accused him of being part of “an evil cult” and shouted that all Muslims are terrorists. In New York, a Muslim 6th grader had her hijab pulled off as fellow students called her “ISIS.” In Texas, an anti­-Muslim group took to the streets and held an armed protest outside of a local mosque.

These are just a few of the 73 Islamophobic attacks that have occurred since the Paris Attacks on November 13th.

The correlation between Trump’s rhetoric and rising Islamophobia cannot be ignored. In fact, according to a YouGov/Economist surveyRepublican voters who believe that Islam poses a direct threat to national security were more inclined to vote for Trump.

YouGov/the Economist’s findings are corroborated by a recent Pew survey, which showed that 4/10 Americans believe that some Muslims in America are “anti­-American.”

Earlier this year, the Council on American­-Islamic Relations (CAIR) conducted a survey to study the ways that recent Islamophobic rhetoric has affected Muslim voter registration. Looking at over 2,000 respondents in the six most heavily Muslim­ populated states, CAIR found that 74 percent of U.S. Muslims planned to vote in the November election, compared to the 69 percent of Muslims that indicated an interest in 2014.

Of the respondents to CAIR’s poll, 67 percent were inclined to vote for a Democrat, compared to 15 percent that identified as Republican. Compared to the 2014 results, newly-politically active Muslim voters skew heavily Democratic. 

Pollsters also asked respondents to rank political issues in order of personal priority, and found that 30 percent of respondents believed that Islamophobia was the most important issue in 2016. Compare that to the same survey in 2014, which found that Islamophobia was the third most important issue for voters, behind healthcare and the economy. In fact, only 15 percent of respondents said that Islamophobia was the most important issue to them two years ago.

In 2016, the latter figure has doubled. Islamophobia was respondents’ primary concern, and reasonably so.

Muslim communities have responded to increased racism with civic engagement: In December, U.S. Islamic organizations including CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America announced that they were teaming up to encourage Muslims to register to vote, with the goal of registering one million new Muslim voters before the November election. As the Executive Director of the American Muslim Alliance put it: “we’re going to register our people and take our souls to the polls.”

Since that meeting in December, we have seen numerous Muslim voter drives all across the country. In Virginia, mosques hosted outreach events in inclement weather. In Georgia, mosques have disseminated emails about the registration process. In urban areas like Chicago and Detroit, mosques have emphasized the importance of voting.

If these organizations reach their goal of registering 1 million new voters, Trump’s rhetoric, and the rest of his party’s parroting of it, will grow even more politically detrimental for the Republican Party. And in future election cycles, increased numbers of voting Muslims may prove a powerful incentive against the type of racism we’ve seen so far this season.

But don’t bet on it: the Republican Party’s “autopsy” of Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss assumed the same would be true of the increasing number of Latino voters in the U.S. — Donald Trump, safe to say, did not heed their advice.

Photo: Muslim Student Association (MSA) West President Bashar Subeh (R), 20, a student at Cal Poly Pomona, watches the Republican presidential debate with other students at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) office in Anaheim, California December 15, 2015.  REUTERS/Jason Redmond

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit1
  • Print this page
  • 896

134 responses to “Republican Islamophobia Is Creating Tens Of Thousands Of New Muslim Voters”

  1. Phil Christensen says:

    That’s not a real word. “Phobias” don’t have a rational basis or an association with centuries of documented and corroborated history.

    • FireBaron says:

      Islamophobia is a portmanteau, as are many others involving unreasonable fear regarding anything. Unfortunately, ever since the third-rate break-in known by the location it occurred, pretty much everything involving a scandal has to have -gate attached to it, just as any unreasonable mass fear adds -phobia to it.

      • Phil Christensen says:

        Strange how we have yet to see the emergence of “Buddistphobia.” By your own definition, it is impossible for Islamophobia to exist.

    • David says:

      Well said.

    • Insinnergy says:

      Thank you for your complete lack of useful input into this discussion.

  2. Dominick Vila says:

    The fact that an overwhelming majority of Muslims, ethnic minorities, rational people, and a plurality of women are planning to vote for whomever runs against Donald Trump is understandable considering what he has said about them and the threats and insults he has directed at them throughout his campaign.

    • itsfun says:

      I have heard the same things said about Hillary.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Hillary has called segments of our populating criminals and rapists? When did she insult POWs? When did she propose banning the entry of members of another religion?
        I have heard people who question her judgment, who blame her for things that are being investigated, and who disagree with just about everything she says or proposes, but I never heard her make anything that comes close to being offensive to anyone, disrespectful, divisive, narcissistic, or bullish.

        • itsfun says:

          Isn’t lying to the family members of the Benghazi victims being disrespectful? When asked why every family said the same thing, she called them liars. Who is the liar there, all the families or Hillary?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Here is Hillary’s statement:
            “You know, look, I feel a great deal of sympathy for the
            families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi,” Clinton
            said. “And I certainly can’t even imagine the grief that she has for
            losing her son. But she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong. I and everybody
            in the administration, all the people she named — the president, the
            vice president, [then-United Nations Ambassador] Susan Rice — we were
            scrambling to get information that was changing literally by the hour.”
            She did not call Patricia Smith a liar, she said she was wrong in her assessment of what happened when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were killed.

          • itsfun says:

            Every family says she did tell them the Video was the reason their family members were murdered. Not using the exact word liar, but saying they are all wrong about what she told them face to face IS calling them liars.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Telling family members of those killed during the Benghazi attack that they were killed by people protesting the contents of a video released days before the attack was not a lie. The worst that could be said is that those who believed that was the root cause for the attack were wrong in their assessment.
            Do you remember what W and members of his administration said after the 11 terrorist attacks against U.S. consulates and embassies that took place while he was in office? If not, don’t feel bad. Nobody asked them. Nobody felt compelled to find a culprit in those days.

          • David says:

            Don’t try to divert the argument. Hildebeast told the families it was the video that incited the attack. But, guess what, her emails show that she told her daughter and the President of Egypt, that evening, the cause of the attack was a planned terrorist Al Qauda strike.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The initial reaction was, indeed, that the attack may have been the result of the same reactions that took place throughout the Islamic world after the release of a video that offended all Muslims.
            The fact that hard liners joined the protesters, and took advantage of the protests to carry out a terrorist attack, is neither implausible nor a lie.

          • David says:

            Wake up! She said by email the evening of the attack that it was a planned operation by Islamic terrorists. She knew what the cause was. It wasn’t a movie. The lie about the video was made to protect Obomo’s reelection. “Hard liners” didn’t just join up. It was a planned operation. Don’t you get it?

          • bjbstarr11 says:

            Move on from this issue. Very sad what happened in Benghazi. Hillary did not kill anyone and she was not charged. The Repubs keep trying to make this an election issue. Go vote for Trump.

          • Insinnergy says:

            So I guess you’re saying that we can then equally apply this level of scrutiny to every single thing said shortly after a major national disaster by Republicans?

            So your argument is: Every Republican has always stated exactly the correct information at every point hours after tragedy as shown by analysis that is done days, months or years after the fact?

            I guess you didn’t hear about 9/11 and the Iraq war then… you enormous moron.
            Or shall I start listing every other time a Republican has given false information in the hours after a something terrible happens?

            The ridiculous thing is that you hold up these imaginary standards that Obama and Hillary must somehow satisfy… apparently without spending even 5 seconds to recognise how blatantly hypocritical you are being.

            Try educating yourself.
            Or maybe a brain transplant..

          • David says:

            Maybe you could educate yourself to read that I did NOT say the Republicans always told the truth. Do have problem with understanding the written word? I still pity you.

          • Phil Christensen says:

            “Hardliner joined the protest.” There’s not enough face-palm in the world for this…

          • itsfun says:

            Now she denies ever saying that. Who do you believe – her or every family of the victims? Being wrong in the assessment is one thing, lying to grieving family members is another. Dom, she lid to grieving families and you talk about finding a culprit. I remember George W telling the survivors he heard them.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            You are changing the argument from calling family members liars, to lying to family members.

          • itsfun says:

            What? I said she lied to family members, and then when the families called her on it, she said she didn’t say that.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            You may want to re-read the post you made 8 hours ago.
            “When asked why every family said the same thing, she called them liars.”
            Conveying an initial opinion or impression is not a lie. The administration acknowledged later that the attack was, indeed, carried out by terrorists rather than protesters that got carried away.

          • David says:

            Wrong again. Here is her statement, “At this point, what difference does it make?”.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Does this make any difference to you? Probably not.

            Terrorist attacks during George W. Bush’s tenure:

            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 killed.

            2002 – U.S. Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.

            2003 – International Compound, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .

            2003 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 2 killed.

            2004 – U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.

            2004 – U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.

            2006 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including a U.S. diplomat.

            2006 – U.S. Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and 13 wounded.

            2007 – Grenade launched into the U.S. Embassy in Athens. No casualties.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.

            2008 – U.S. Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

          • David says:

            Did she say it, or didn’t she? Focus on the topic!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I can’t remember her exact words, but I believe she did say something like that, meaning that rehashing what we should have known in advance, taking precautions, and knowing exactly what happened would not change things.
            The same goes for the 11 terrorist attacks I cited above, but you don’t want to talk about that and prefer to consider off topic.
            BTW, the topic that itsfun and I were discussing was an allegation involving HRC calling a Benghazi victim family member a liar. I provided him with her exact quote, obtained in a right wing website called Red States, and suddenly the topic shifted from the “liar” claim to another claim.
            HRC and her husband have been the targets of attacks, insinuations, accusations, and demonization since he was the Governor of Arkansas. The reason is obvious. Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents this country had since FDR, and HRC is the best candidate running for POTUS.

          • hicusdicus says:

            OMG! you really are a hack.

          • itsfun says:

            What does any of what you are posting have to do with Hillary lying?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            What she is accused of, insofar as the Benghazi tragedy is concerned, pales in comparison to what happened when Republicans controlled the White House, and what Republicans want to take us back to…and win, win, win to make us great.
            I don’t blame you for ignoring and refusing to consider the GOP record. I would do the same if I was a Republican.

          • itsfun says:

            We are talking about Hillary and her allergy to the truth. I am not ignoring any issues from anybody or any ancient history. Wining to make us great is a lot better than losing to make us terrible. You are just trying to change the subject.

          • CrankyToo says:

            That point is moot. You’re too intelligent and too cognizant to be a Republican.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I gave you the statement she made. She did not call any of the victims family members a liar.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Dominick is a liberal hack. Why bother responding?

          • bobnstuff says:

            And you are what? A twister of facts or a blind sheep just following you goat to the slaughter.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Do you get paid by the letter o the word?

          • itsfun says:

            I think Dominick tries to be as honest as possible most of the time. I think he just has a blind spot when Hillary is the subject. He always tries to talk about George Bush or other Republicans when she is the subject. He doesn’t engage in name calling which is something I respect also.

          • Insinnergy says:

            What does that quote ‘prove’, you sputtering retard?

          • dpaano says:

            That David has taken it completely out of context, which is what most of the trolls do!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Incidentally, believing the Republican made and released video was the cause for the initial protests, that served as a cover for a devastating terrorist attack is understandable, and probably correct.
            The question that should be asked, is when and how did Republicans learned that an attack was going to take place, leading them to reject the notion of a protest being part of it within hours of the attack taking place? Does it seem realistic that Republicans knew exactly what happened, before the CIA, NSA, and other national security agencies had a chance to determine its causes and who was responsible for it?
            No wonder so many Republicans believe and have faith in The Donald’s magic wand. The magical one, not the one he brags about.

          • itsfun says:

            Are you actually trying to blame the Republicans for the attack in Benghazi? We are talking about the SOS lying to families of victims. It has been proven that the administration knew the video didn’t cause the attack before they sent people on Sunday morning TV to lie to the people of this country. The SOS is part of the administration. You are getting as bad as Obama by trying to blame the Republicans for the Attack.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I believe the fact that so many Republicans knew exactly what happened, immediately after the attack, and that an offensive video was made and released two months before a presidential election in the USA, was not an accident. As a minimum it is very suspicious.
            Nothing has been proven about Benghazi, other than the fact that the attack was carried out by terrorists. Believing that it may have been caused by the video that elicited the ire of tens of thousands of Muslims throughout the Islamic world in the days preceding the attack was understandable. The fact that we learned later that the attack was carried out by radical members of Islam does not change anything. Obviously, it was not carried out by disciples of Mother Teresa.
            HRC was subjected to an 11 hour Inquisitorial trial, with nothing to show for it, except for the determination of her detractors to discredit her.
            As opposed to what happened after 9/11, when OBL remained at large for almost a decade, President Obama ordered the raid that resulted in the capture and incarceration of Al Libby, the leader of the Benghazi attack, within one year.
            I know that facts and results are irrelevant for those who rely on smoke screens in the absence of substantive debate and proposals, but let me suggest something: consider 9/11, the attacks in Madrid and London, the 11 U.S. consulates and embassies attacked during W’s tenure, the daily road side bombings, the use of torture, and the death of 4,700 U.S. soldiers before you mention Benghazi.

          • itsfun says:

            Oh come on, next you will be blaming the Republicans for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Hillary lied to grieving families and your giving her a complete pass for that. I don’t think anyone ever blamed Hillary for the attack on our embassy. The blame lies solely with the attackers. Lying to the people of the US and families of victims is what I am posting about.

          • meridaest says:

            When are we going to stop calling everyone who has a different perception of events from us a liar? I’m sure we can find many examples among left and right. Fewer from the middle.

          • Polana says:

            Bush/Cheney lied to whole world about WMD and lkilled over 5K of our own and thousands of Iraqis and created ISIS and that’s Ok w/U??? TROLL. You must be Rush Limpballs.

          • itsfun says:

            WMD’s were used. Saddam used them on his own people. They didn’t create ISIS or any other terrorist group. That kind of stuff get done by drawing red lines then backing down. That kind of terrorists get created by a President that goes around apologizing to the whole world because the United States is a great and successful country. You using name calling like Rush Limpballs is just a weak mind trying to express its self.

          • cthetruth says:

            Weapons of mass destruction were used on the Kurds, but when Bush 1 invaded Kuwait they were all accounted for. Why do you think Velerie Plame from the CI A went public. She knew they were not there. Her husband also testified there was no yellow cake from Niger sent to Iraq for a nuclear weapon. All lies as a ruse to invade Iraq so Halliburton and Blackwater could line the pockets of the politicians. Valerie Plame and her husband went public because they feared for their lives for exposing all the lies.

          • itsfun says:

            All of the evidence Bush and the rest of the world had pointed to WMD’s. You can’t take the word of a married couple over the rest of your intelligence. I forget how many nations agreed with Bush, but it was a bunch of them. For all we know, chemicals are still buried somewhere in the desert there right now. It doesn’t take much space to dig a hole and bury a canister.

          • cthetruth says:

            A married couple? Valerie Plame was a CIA operative working in Iraq with the scientists looking for WMD,S. There were none there. Her husband was ambassador to Niger. What they had to say did not fit with the administrations plans to invade,

          • itsfun says:

            So the words of this married couple mean more than all the intelligent gathering agencies in the world.

          • To act as a sycophant on behalf of any Party only besmirches one’s credibility and brings to question the sanity of anyone with such slavish devotion.

          • David says:

            There you go insulting Hildebeast’s loyal followers.

          • cthetruth says:

            I blame the Repulicans starting with Nixon for ordering the shooting and killing of four unarmed college students for simply protesting the Vietnam War. They were not in a dangerous war zone just their college campus. I blame the Repulicans under Pope Ronald Reagan for ignoring Casper Weinberger when he told him not to send 241 marines to Beirut which resulted in our poor men being blown up in their barracks while they slept.Where was their protection. Why was Reagan not impeached for selling our military weapons to our enemy Iran, or why he ran a secret illegal war in Nicaraugua.
            Where were the Repulicans when Reagan gave hundreds of millions to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians. Why was there no investigation as to why one of our planes were blown out of the skies over Lockerbie , killing many of our exchange students. Please stop with Benghazi.

          • itsfun says:

            I will never stop with Benghazi! It happened and was lied about by the SOS and the President of the US. The college students were shot by a state national guardsman, not the feds. I am much more concerned with current events, not ancient history as you are.

          • cthetruth says:

            I also forgot the lies from Bush and Cheney pertaining to weapons of mass destruction that was contrived. Also it was Nixon himself that ordered tha National guard to shoot. As far as being in the past,it is the decisions of the past that brought us to the present.

          • itsfun says:

            If you would like I can post the pages of lies from Obama and Hillary

          • bjbstarr11 says:

            Really, the republicans blame the President for everything, including the hate that is spewing from Trump. So happy the President is leaving office. Now you can blame someone else.

          • itsfun says:

            I don’t think the Republicans need Obama to hate Trump. The establishment is so afraid of losing power they will do or say anything to hurt Trump. With the unfavorable s and trustworthiness polls of both Trump and Hillary, I fear we are in for at least 4 more years of distrust between parties and more and more partisanship no matter which one of them gets elected. I wish they would both drop out of the race. Maybe then we could get someone in office that can be be trusted by both sides.

          • Polana says:

            BIBI Notyetwho. We are a part of Israel and report to him.

          • itsfun says:

            I doubt if it matters how much Trump or Hillary lie. They will win their parties nomination. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Honesty and politicians are foreign to each other.

          • bobnstuff says:

            It’s a shame that this is what our country is coming to but you are right. In politics nice guys don’t even get to start let alone finish even last.

          • David says:

            The question is, “Why, in the face of the insurmountable evidence, do you support that lying c..t?

          • Joan says:

            Why can’t you be civil? I believe that the right’s inability to stay civil and respectful in the face of dissent, displayed so throughly here, will drive more and more people from your party and ideas. Mr. Vila has posted respectfully and throughly his thinking on our currently election cycle. He has done so without the use of vile name calling. If you want to add to the discourse and be taken seriously feel free to do the same. Please keep your comments factual and respectful. Avoid the use of names that should never be used in polite society. You are responsible for your word choice whether it is spelled out or not. So far they reflect poorly on you.

          • David says:

            I apologize for offending you. Hildebeast irritates me. It irritates me even more that she has such of following of those who idolize her. She has done nothing to deserve it.

          • bjbstarr11 says:

            Then you should vote for Trump.

          • David says:

            Either him or Cruz.

          • Joan says:

            If your truly sorry, why do it again? ANYONE who has served this country in our armed forces or public office deserves the use of their name rather than an crude nickname. You do not have to agree to be respectful. You do neither your thoughts or your cause any service.

          • Insinnergy says:

            Don’t bother.
            Platitude spouting David has been on a multitude of bigoted, misogynist rants before.
            He’s not civilised.
            He’s not logical.
            And he doesn’t bother to provide evidence or links for ANYTHING he says. Just deflects.
            If he’s not a paid troll, then he’s a spectacularly poor right-wing apologist.
            Why? Because he exemplifies the GOPs politics of division and hate without research or ethics, in his own posts, making it starkly obvious to everyone reading… and undermining any headway he makes.

          • David says:

            I am a Vietnam Veteran. Nothing she has done merits respect as was earned by my brothers in arms. On the other hand, she has done quite a bit to earn disdain.

          • dpaano says:

            Gee, David, I’m one of your so-called “brothers in arms” or “sisters in arms” actually, and I don’t agree with you at all! Please don’t glom all of us Vietnam vets in your little group because not all of us feel the same disrespect that you do for Hillary!

          • David says:

            Maybe because you know how she must have felt “dodging sniper fire” when she was in Bosnia?

          • bobnstuff says:

            She has the the following because she is a smart well educated hard working women. She has done a lot of jobs well and can do the job of president well. My question for you is what did she gain by lying? If she knowingly lied then should there not have been something to gain and don’t you think she would have done a much better job of it? After 8 hearings the republicans can nail her on no wrong doing and the best they can do is complain about her Email. Do you believe that HRC is stupid enough to tell a lie when she know the truth would come out. You don’t have to like her, you would never like a women who is smarter then you. your ego wouldn’t let you. Don’t under estimate her, she is no fool. No matter how much mud the republicans throw at her she just keeps on going. Get over it!

          • David says:

            I disagree that she has “done a lot of jobs well”. I take that back. She did ‘bimbo eruption control’ very well. She lied about Benghazi to aid with Obomo’s reelection. If the FBI treats her like they did Petraeus…

          • bobnstuff says:

            Who would have cared if the attack was planned vs. a result of the video, no one. Do you believe she would try to protect Obama? There was no gain in lying and much to loose. It would have played better had they said that it was a planned attack with overwhelming force. Petraeus leaked secrets, he got justice. So far there has been no evidence that Hillary leaked anything.

          • David says:

            “Leaked”? She had top secret information on her private server. “But…nothing was marked, Top Secret.” Oh, then I guess she is too f..ing stupid to know what should and should not be on her private server open to hacking. I am also sure that her defense counsel has a top secret clearance — just like Petraeus’ girlfriend. But, at this point, what difference does it make?

          • bobnstuff says:

            Your knowledge of how the internet works is very limited. Her server was more secure the the governments and at the time there were not laws about her using it. As of today there is no proof her system was hacked, can you say the same about any of the government sights? You should be worried about all those people in government using wireless systems. Even I can hack those. Nothing on the internet is safe and the real juicy stuff is not sent in email. This is as the Republicans have told you that this is a political witch hunt and it’s about bring down Hillary and nothing else.

          • David says:

            I get it. She was doing the Government a favor by using her private server instead of the official one. That Hildebeast! Always acting in other people’s best interests!

          • bobnstuff says:

            It was a lot safer then the governments sights. Don’t you think it’s funny that the senate didn’t even know she had it until she was out of office. A private server with limited access and good fire walls is far safer then one used by hundreds of people. Her house was protected 24/7. Her Blackberry was far less safe.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Hacking away.

          • hicusdicus says:

            She makes her own mud. Nobody cares what you say you are a compensated hack.

          • bobnstuff says:

            You care, I know because you feel a need to respond. The conservatives have been hunting Hillary for years and keep coming up empty. You want to believe she has do bad deeds and all the facts in the world will not change your mind.

          • plc97477 says:

            David must have a hard time in life because I bet there are a lot of women that are smarter than him.

          • Relax, David. Count to 10 and take deep breaths. Atta boy.

          • toejam says:

            I would not be concerned. She seems to be a confused dingle berry.

          • David says:

            Or a lying one!

          • toejam says:

            politics is not a polite society.

          • Joan says:

            Politics is a reflection of our society. I have no doubt that any reflection you see would be very brutish indeed based on your post. Brutish, uninspired, dark depressing and with an inexplicable smell of decay attached. Just guessing …

          • toejam says:

            You got that out of my 6 word comment.I think you just gave me a reflection of your mind. Abused childhood or what???

          • Insinnergy says:

            Yep… misogynist.
            As suspected.

          • Wonderful “Christian(?)” sentiments you display

          • toejam says:

            He gets paid to fabricate. Nobody could be as misinformed as he is.

          • David says:

            Obviously, Hildebeast has been a liar from the word “go”. From her investment in to cattle futures; Whitewater; Travelgate; bimbo eruption control; looting the Whitehouse; leaving the Whitehouse “flat broke”; “dodging sniper fire” in Bosnia; to selling influence while S of S via donations to the Clinton Foundation. This b..ch is without immoral equal.

          • itsfun says:

            ditto

        • David says:

          Listen to what Hildebeast says about gun owners and the NRA.

          • Insinnergy says:

            Oooh look….Godly David is actually a woman hating misogynist.
            “Hildebeast”? Really?
            Wow, you really are a stupid zealot.

        • Ran_dum_Thot says:

          Only a fool can listen to someone like Trump and believe literally all that he says. A football coach exhorts his players to go out and kill the opposition. Obviously that isn’t meant to be taken literally.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Presidential candidates are supposed to articulate proposals to problems and provide a vision of what they plan to do if elected, not deliver pep talks or provide entertainment.

          • Ran_dum_Thot says:

            Good grief: The King of pep talks is President now. As it stands now all the other candidates main platform is to stop Trump. That hardly reflects articulate exposition of what is necessary to lead our country out of its quagmire due to poor governing.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            President Obama has done a lot more than just pep talks. He prevented the U.S. economy from collapsing, as President Bush predicted in 2008. He helped produce one of the most incredible economic turnarounds in history. Today, the U.S. economy is, once again, second to none. Our GDP is second to none. Our budget deficits have been cut by 2/3. Industrial icons such as GM and Chrysler were saved from bankruptcy, with tens of thousands of jobs saved. A loss of 800,000 jobs in one month was transformed into an average of 250,000 jobs created. The physical size of government was reduced by 700,000 civil servant positions. The DOW has been at all time record highs during the last three years. Gas prices have been cut in more than half from the record high established in July 2008.
            The slaughter in Iraq ended. The number of U.S. military casualties was reduced from 4,700 during W’s tenure down to one in the last three years. The same goes for the number of U.S. soldiers maimed. Torture is a thing of the past. Last, but not least, our international credibility has been restored, albeit for the fact that Trump’s candidacy is eliciting incredulity and fear among most of our allies.
            Comparing one of the most pragmatic and effective Presidents in U.S. history to a narcissistic, immature, irresponsible, divisive, charlatan like Donald Trump is ridiculous.

          • toejam says:

            I bet that bit of fabrication got you a big bonus.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Is that the best you can say to refute facts?

          • Ran_dum_Thot says:

            Private sector jobs: Reagan created 12.6 million, Clinton 21.6, million, Bush 5.7 million Obama 9.3 million. The Bush-Obama numbers are skewed because of the financial debacle that straddled both presidencies. The number of federal govt. employees has bobbled between 5 to 4.1 million since 1992, with a modest spike during Obama’s term. The big decrease in govt. employees has been at state and local levels, not federal. The U3 unemployment rate may be about 5% but the U6 unemployment rate is more like 10%. Many of the so-called newly employed are part-time (1 hour or more/week), seasonal, temporary or under employed. GNP does not reflect the quality of living, merely the cost of goods and services produced. As the 3rd largest nation in the world our GNP should be high, regardless. As for narcissism: Obama spends a lot of time talking about his ideas, what he is going to do–with or without Congress, what he thinks is best. IT would have been far less egocentric if he had talked about what the citizens wanted, not himself. Obama’s health care plan did not and will not reduce medical costs for Americans. Quite the opposite is true.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The U3 unemployment calculus has been the official method used to determine unemployment in the USA for decades. Trying to make a point using the U6 method is irrelevant, unless you do the same for former presidents.
            All politicians articulate their ideas, proposals, and vision. President Obama is not an exception to that rule. What is an exception is a man who thinks people love him because he is handsome, a man who believes he can fix complex problems because he has a good brain, and other such examples of narcissism.
            http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

          • Ran_dum_Thot says:

            As usual you have missed the point. The fact that U3 or U6 is or is not used merely reflects the continued efforts to not tell the whole truth to the public. This applies to the private, public sectors over the years and regardless of political party in power. One expects a person’s personal opinion to be revealed, but for someone who is acting in the capacity of the people’s representative, that personal opinion takes a back seat-and needs to be heard less.

        • toejam says:

          You have never been exposed to her. Why don’t you ask the people who work for her?

    • David says:

      The overwhelming majority of “rational” people? Well, I guess we are lucky to have you determine who fits that description.

    • Ran_dum_Thot says:

      Actually it is not fact that an overwhelming majority will vote against Trump. That statement is nothing more than a supposition based on wishful thinking. Given the alternatives of voting for a communist, a liar, or a party hack, Trump is at least a step away from the establishment’s Good-Ole-Boys-Club, which serves only itself, not the needs of the citizens. If it takes a rebel to bring the country around to sanity, so be it. The alternatives will continue increasing the deficit, spoon feeding and suppressing the lower classes with free handouts, and strive to become rulers without constraints of their usurped powers.

  3. Otto T. Goat says:

    Democrats can’t win the votes of normal people.

  4. CrankyToo says:

    Let me see if I understand this…

    Of the Muslims polled, 15% (of those who intend to vote) identify as Republican????????

    Q: How stupid do you have to be to vote Republican if you’re a Muslim?

    A: Stupid enough to get a Turd Party membership card. (But, hopefully, not stupid enough to show up at one of Trump’s rallies.)

  5. dpaano says:

    It sickens me, in this day and age, that we have such racism against African Americans, Muslims, Jews, and I could name a few more! This is the 21st Century, for Pete’s sake!!! You’d think this country and its population would have grown up a little more than they have! It’s pretty darn sad, and it hurts me to see people, ANY people, treated so badly!

    • toejam says:

      If you were in the minority do you think blacks , Mexicans and other ethnic groups would treat you with respect? They don’t treat each other with respect. Most of the racism in this world is directed against white people. When are you going to wake up to the realities of human nature?

    • Buzzi Butt says:

      The U.S. Constitution grants same rights to all citizens. To have the government then go beyond that and give special interest groups additional rights and privileges over other groups, especially the majority, is discrimination. We are a democratic republic and as such, the opinion of the majority rules. We can have black colleges but not white ones. We can give special immigration status to Latinos but not Europeans. We can allow the mentally/psychologically confused to redefine science and fact. We allow the religion of non-citizens to override the law of the land. We allow non-citizens to have the rights and privileges of citizens. All I see is a chipping away at one of the finest documents ever written in the history of mankind by those that only think of themselves, not the viability of community of citizens as a whole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.