>Well, yesterday, he appointed a white nationalist as his chief stategist.
>
>Yes. I know that this is what you call him. Just because you are prejudiced doesn't make you right.

If you look at his history, it's obvious that he is a supporter of that movement. The content of Breitbart is full of white nationalist rhetoric. If he's publishing that and doesn't believe, frankly that makes him equally despicable.

But it occurs to me ask (though I never thought I'd have to ask anyone I knew this question) whether, in fact, you find white nationalism objectionable.


>
>The guy running his EPA transition is a global warming denier. Other names that have been floated are quite extreme well. We'll see, but it's not looking promising.
>
>The only thing that would look promising to you would be an HRC presidency. BTW, I am a global warming denier (or, as they say in New Speak "Climate Change"). I can find as much support for my position as you can for yours....

Well, maybe, but not actual science. In the real world, global warming (which I'm now trying to remember to say since calling it "climate change" was a right-wing strategy to minimize it) is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious challenge we face over the next decade or so. You don't have children or grandchildren, but I have kids and hope to have grandkids and I want to leave and everyone else a livable world.

>
>AFAICS your entire diatribe about Trumps money is - well - trumped up. It is clear that you hate the guy and do not want to give him a chance. I bet that Jupiter is looking better all the time VBG......

You think it's acceptable for a President to not put his holdings into a blind trust. If Obama had failed to do so, would that have been okay with you?

Tamar