>>What do you call a life-long racist who etc etc etc etc etc

4 Legs good, 2 legs bad!
4 legs good, orange man bad!
4 legs good, republicans bad!
4 legs good, you've been had!




Come on, Victor. You're a smart dude: True or false:

1) Black unemployment rate is the lowest since record keeping began almost 50 years ago... something Trump likes to boast about. Why, if he's racist or those he addresses are racist? Please don't chase the "Obama deserves the credit" squirrel- the question is why would a racist boast to other racists about such a thing.
2) Hispanics agree that other Hispanics should not be allowed to breach the border illegally (which seems to meet at least 2 definitions of invasion if you haven't checked the dictionary yet) to work illegally. Tolerating this benefits the owning 1% class who reduce their overheads paying unnaturally cheap rates at the expense of legal workers who have to compete on price or draw food stamps. Who's the racist there?

But put all that aside.

Do you agree or not agree that a nation ought to feel obligation to provide meaningful employment- aka purpose- to even the lowest of the low amongst the citizenry?
Do you agree with classical philosophers that lack of purpose leads to hopelessness and then to allegiance to gangs with their trite slogans rather than the social compact?
Why is there so much inner city gun crime in Chicago? Who is being shot? Who is doing the shooting? ....... why aren't they at work?
Do you accept that the trade deficit with China alone has led to job losses in every precinct of every state, currently estimated at almost 3.5M job losses? Who did that benefit?
Have you ever seen a POTUS *doing* something about this rather than making rousing speeches? Who? When?

Is it even remotely possible- that people apart from the 1% might conclode that POTUS may be a brash loudmouth sometimes, but other times he says things that other cowards have ignored to please the 1% donors?

Is it possible that people consider whether they prefer a smarmy perfect-toothed politician who has mastered erudite speechifying, the binary hate meme and the speak-with-forked-tongue ability to please everybody (especially the 1% donors who congratulate them later in smoky private rooms) versus the potty-mouthed slogger who blurts out some bad stuff but gets things done?

If some people decide they prefer things getting done rather than being charmed, does that make them deplorable?

I haven't even started on the Medicare deficit that ought to be enough to cause revolution once the young realize what's been done to them.