[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Schadrach]

I love when my cheer section get together to jerk each other off.

Aww. Did I misrepresent your intentionally vaguely expressed position? Then clarify.

Hell, let's try a couple of hypotheticals, if you want more information in any of these cases, just ask and I'll fill in the details you want if they are discoverable (some things, especially in the first case might no longer exist or be useless due to the passage of time for example):

1. Two women (sisters) accuse a man of repeatedly raping them 40 years ago. They tell a nearly identical tale - that he was hired to babysit them and once their parents had left he stripped them and took turns raping them repeatedly while they screamed and cried, but no help came. They claim he did this each time he babysat them for an entire summer. Because of the age of the accusation, no physical evidence can be obtained. He was definitely hired to babysit them and does not contest that part, but denies the allegations of rape. No one else in the area saw or heard anything unusual, they never said anything about it in the following 4 decades to anyone until now, and never suggested they wanted a different babysitter at the time. A psychiatric evaluator testifies that the women are definitely traumatized by what happened to them, but cannot prove or disprove whether any element of their testimony is factual. Should he be punished?

2. A woman was found tied up, claims to have been physically assaulted, tied up, then sexually assaulted with a coat hanger by her ex. She gives a detailed very specific account of what happened, down to the time within a ten minute window. States exactly where he'll be right now, at a school a couple of miles away, likely in his car, waiting to pickup his son because he has custody for the weekend. Man is exactly where she said he'd be. There is no physical evidence of another person coming to the house - her account actually explains this, claiming that he wore gloves, a hairnet, a face mask, etc and carried the rope and other supplies used in a black duffle bag. No trace of the black duffle bag nor any of the forensic countermeasures she said he had used is ever found, despite a thorough search of the area. His credit/debit card records don't show any suspicious purchases or cash withdrawals that might explain where his "rape kit" came from. According to him, he flew in from Vegas to pick up his son from school to get their time together started as quick as possible, and the school told him to wait until the end of the school day, so he just sat in his car until the police picked him up. Should he be punished?

1 is based directly on an actual case. 2 is based on an actual case with one tiny adjustment that I think is illustrative.

 

[Saelune]

I love when my cheer section get together to jerk each other off.

Aww. Did I misrepresent your intentionally vaguely expressed position? Then clarify.

Hell, let's try a couple of hypotheticals, if you want more information in any of these cases, just ask and I'll fill in the details you want if they are discoverable (some things, especially in the first case might no longer exist or be useless due to the passage of time for example):

1. Two women (sisters) accuse a man of repeatedly raping them 40 years ago. They tell a nearly identical tale - that he was hired to babysit them and once their parents had left he stripped them and took turns raping them repeatedly while they screamed and cried, but no help came. They claim he did this each time he babysat them for an entire summer. Because of the age of the accusation, no physical evidence can be obtained. He was definitely hired to babysit them and does not contest that part, but denies the allegations of rape. No one else in the area saw or heard anything unusual, they never said anything about it in the following 4 decades to anyone until now, and never suggested they wanted a different babysitter at the time. A psychiatric evaluator testifies that the women are definitely traumatized by what happened to them, but cannot prove or disprove whether any element of their testimony is factual. Should he be punished?

2. A woman was found tied up, claims to have been physically assaulted, tied up, then sexually assaulted with a coat hanger by her ex. She gives a detailed very specific account of what happened, down to the time within a ten minute window. States exactly where he'll be right now, at a school a couple of miles away, likely in his car, waiting to pickup his son because he has custody for the weekend. Man is exactly where she said he'd be. There is no physical evidence of another person coming to the house - her account actually explains this, claiming that he wore gloves, a hairnet, a face mask, etc and carried the rope and other supplies used in a black duffle bag. No trace of the black duffle bag nor any of the forensic countermeasures she said he had used is ever found, despite a thorough search of the area. His credit/debit card records don't show any suspicious purchases or cash withdrawals that might explain where his "rape kit" came from. According to him, he flew in from Vegas to pick up his son from school to get their time together started as quick as possible, and the school told him to wait until the end of the school day, so he just sat in his car until the police picked him up. Should he be punished?

1 is based directly on an actual case. 2 is based on an actual case with one tiny adjustment that I think is illustrative.

I am just amused by how much I piss off all you 'Not a Republican but...'s. Also amused by how more leeway is given to shitting on me than is given to calling out bigotry.

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

 

[Saelune]

On topic: Trump absolutely could prove his innocence (if he is innocent) and consistently chooses not to. He constantly holds evidence and refuses to give information that he is legally obligated to give. Trump is obstructing justice and committing fraud and other crimes and solely because he is the Republican President and that Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

 

[Leg End]

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence.

So, because someone has been accused of something that allegedly happened 40 years ago that is utterly impossible to prove or even disprove, they should be restricted in what they are free to do for probably the rest of their natural life because, again, it is impossible to disprove? Would you hold yourself to this same standard?

 

[Saelune]

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence.

So, because someone has been accused of something that allegedly happened 40 years ago that is utterly impossible to prove or even disprove, they should be restricted in what they are free to do for probably the rest of their natural life because, again, it is impossible to disprove? Would you hold yourself to this same standard?

Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

 

[Leg End]

Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

 

[Schadrach]

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

Before I point out where I got this one from, you realize you are saying he should be permanently barred from those positions because it's practically impossible to definitively prove you didn't do something like that, right? In this guys case, he doesn't argue with the fact that he was left alone with access to the girls that would provide him all the opportunity in the world, so if we assume he's totally innocent how would he even *try* to prove that? Let alone the Kavanaugh case where it happened "sometime that summer" and

So, this one is based on an actual case from the UK. The sisters alleged this happened when they were age 6-7 and 8-9 in 1974-1975, the man accused was 14 at the time and later became a police officer. He was tried in June 2011. He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years, later reduced to 5 years, and being put on the sex offender register.

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? This one is also based on a real case, to which I made one small change (literally what the accused had for breakfast that morning, and the fallout of that). Since it's based off a real case, if you need more evidence I can tell you what the real investigation found, if anything. Just tell me what you're looking for. I'll throw one at you for free, since you might not think of it: video from the airport shows that he didn't bring the black duffle mentioned with him on the plane (or indeed any luggage), but it wasn't anything unique and could be bought nearly anywhere.

Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

I can't argue that. So long as he's President, he can't be formally charged with a crime and put through the court system. So long as he's President, the only option to apply criminal justice to him is impeachment and removal from office to remove that protection, and impeachment relies on being able to get both houses of Congress to vote as desired, as the House puts things in motion but the Senate has to vote hm out of office. The Senate is highly unlikely to do so, unless several senators follow the lead of Justin Amash.

A failed attempt at impeachment will...not help...Democrat chances in 2020. So the best the Dems can do if they want to impeach Trump is either take the Senate in 2020 and then impeach Trump if he gets reelected or use their ability to investigate and hope to dredge up enough dirt that enough GOP Senators can't turn a blind eye to it without risking their own offices.

I honestly suspect whether one term or two he won't get impeached for entirely political reasons, but there's a real chance he'll get charged as soon as his term is up. Part of me wonders if he's clever enough to be somewhere that won't extradite to the US on the last day of his term.

 

[Saelune]

Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists. When one of ours does something wrong, we drop them. Even Al Franken got dropped. Roy Moore on the other hand, still allowed to represent Republicans.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement. The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals. So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

 

[Saelune]

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

Before I point out where I got this one from, you realize you are saying he should be permanently barred from those positions because it's practically impossible to definitively prove you didn't do something like that, right? In this guys case, he doesn't argue with the fact that he was left alone with access to the girls that would provide him all the opportunity in the world, so if we assume he's totally innocent how would he even *try* to prove that? Let alone the Kavanaugh case where it happened "sometime that summer" and

So, this one is based on an actual case from the UK. The sisters alleged this happened when they were age 6-7 and 8-9 in 1974-1975, the man accused was 14 at the time and later became a police officer. He was tried in June 2011. He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years, later reduced to 5 years, and being put on the sex offender register.

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? This one is also based on a real case, to which I made one small change (literally what the accused had for breakfast that morning, and the fallout of that). Since it's based off a real case, if you need more evidence I can tell you what the real investigation found, if anything. Just tell me what you're looking for. I'll throw one at you for free, since you might not think of it: video from the airport shows that he didn't bring the black duffle mentioned with him on the plane (or indeed any luggage), but it wasn't anything unique and could be bought nearly anywhere.

Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

I can't argue that. So long as he's President, he can't be formally charged with a crime and put through the court system. So long as he's President, the only option to apply criminal justice to him is impeachment and removal from office to remove that protection, and impeachment relies on being able to get both houses of Congress to vote as desired, as the House puts things in motion but the Senate has to vote hm out of office. The Senate is highly unlikely to do so, unless several senators follow the lead of Justin Amash.

A failed attempt at impeachment will...not help...Democrat chances in 2020. So the best the Dems can do if they want to impeach Trump is either take the Senate in 2020 and then impeach Trump if he gets reelected or use their ability to investigate and hope to dredge up enough dirt that enough GOP Senators can't turn a blind eye to it without risking their own offices.

I honestly suspect whether one term or two he won't get impeached for entirely political reasons, but there's a real chance he'll get charged as soon as his term is up. Part of me wonders if he's clever enough to be somewhere that won't extradite to the US on the last day of his term.

You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

As for impeachment, if it fails, then it is because the government is corrupt. If it succeeds, then bye Trump. People saying it wont help are just trying to sabotage the left.

 

[Saelune]

Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

 

[Leg End]

I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists.

Last I checked, my party has no such issues.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement.

...You sure you're addressing the right person?I have no such idolatry for Donald, and my views are socially liberal. Well, actual liberal.

The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals.

The Dems care more about shitting on Trump than they do actually having a platform.

So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

Microscopic government, First Amendment, believe whatever ethereal stuff you want. You're actively attacking a strawman that does not exist here.

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

I. Am. Not. A. Republican.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

...And I care about any of those besides any potential for theft or lies?

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

If you cared about justice, you'd support things like due process. But here we are.

You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

Well, considering a conviction, it's a logical conclusion. But it sounds like you're against him being an officer even without it. With that presented evidence, would you have truly been able to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty?

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

...With everything you're saying, I'm beginning to understand how you can say you campaign for rights, yet support throwing those rights in the trash.

No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

Well he's certainly lost a fair bit of my backing after stuff like the bump stock ban and generally being wishwash. Too bad the Libertarian Party isn't caring about putting forward an actual Libertarian, and the Dems are just dead at the starting line. Can't run a party on just saying "Fuck Drumpf".

 

[Saelune]

I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists.

Last I checked, my party has no such issues.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement.

...You sure you're addressing the right person?I have no such idolatry for Donald, and my views are socially liberal. Well, actual liberal.

The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals.

The Dems care more about shitting on Trump than they do actually having a platform.

So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

Microscopic government, First Amendment, believe whatever ethereal stuff you want. You're actively attacking a strawman that does not exist here.

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

I. Am. Not. A. Republican.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

...And I care about any of those besides any potential for theft or lies?

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

If you cared about justice, you'd support things like due process. But here we are.

You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

Well, considering a conviction, it's a logical conclusion. But it sounds like you're against him being an officer even without it. With that presented evidence, would you have truly been able to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty?

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

...With everything you're saying, I'm beginning to understand how you can say you campaign for rights, yet support throwing those rights in the trash.

No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

Well he's certainly lost a fair bit of my backing after stuff like the bump stock ban and generally being wishwash. Too bad the Libertarian Party isn't caring about putting forward an actual Libertarian, and the Dems are just dead at the starting line. Can't run a party on just saying "Fuck Drumpf".

Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

I do support due process. It is Trump and Kavanaugh who don't. I just think Due Process could be done better.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them. I support equal rights. But 'rights' is a real vague term anyways. I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color. But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out. But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

 

[Leg End]

Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

There is no 'but'. I am not a Republican, I have never been a Republican, and as far as I can tell now, I will never be a Republican. I can however tell you that I was a Democrat before I realized that they didn't value Rights or Freedom in much of any capacity. Are you actually trying to Gaslight me?

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

The GOP supports legal abortion?

I do support due process. ... I just think Due Process could be done better.

By removing key rights and freedoms and components of due process. It's like saying you supports rights and freedoms while also saying we need watchlists, which I also disagree with the Dems, Republicans, and Donald on.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

Aye, but your definition of clean would also mean simply accused with no way of proving otherwise, short of a GoPro strapped to your face.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them.

The Constitution? And every other right reserved for The People?

I support equal rights. But

See, unlike me with Republicans, you actually use the word 'But'.

'rights' is a real vague term anyways.

No it isn't.

I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color.

You really ought to read this, particularly that bit about Jefferson's relation. You(on some strange level) agree more with it than you think.

But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out.

So rape and racism need spelling out? Are you sure about that? Sounds clear as day.

But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

 

[tstorm823]

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

 

[Leg End]

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

...Were you trying to quote Saelune or was that actually for me? If the latter, can you explain?

 

[Saelune]

Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

There is no 'but'. I am not a Republican, I have never been a Republican, and as far as I can tell now, I will never be a Republican. I can however tell you that I was a Democrat before I realized that they didn't value Rights or Freedom in much of any capacity. Are you actually trying to Gaslight me?

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

The GOP supports legal abortion?

I do support due process. ... I just think Due Process could be done better.

By removing key rights and freedoms and components of due process. It's like saying you supports rights and freedoms while also saying we need watchlists, which I also disagree with the Dems, Republicans, and Donald on.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

Aye, but your definition of clean would also mean simply accused with no way of proving otherwise, short of a GoPro strapped to your face.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them.

The Constitution? And every other right reserved for The People?

I support equal rights. But

See, unlike me with Republicans, you actually use the word 'But'.

'rights' is a real vague term anyways.

No it isn't.

I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color.

You really ought to read this, particularly that bit about Jefferson's relation. You(on some strange level) agree more with it than you think.

But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out.

So rape and racism need spelling out? Are you sure about that? Sounds clear as day.

But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

Explain to me how Republicans are not racist and actually are pro-equal rights. Do it. I'd love to see you try.

All either of you are doing is telling me I am wrong for thinking a political party that constantly votes against equal rights and constantly creates laws and policies that attack and hurt minorities is bigoted. So, without just showing me Trump holding a defiled rainbow flag or some self-hating person with a MAGA hat on, explain to me with actual evidence how Republicans are the good guys.

I'll wait. I am still waiting for Zontar to explain how Trump is pro-LGBT, but its been...jeez, 2 years since he said he would.

 

[Leg End]

Explain to me how Republicans are not racist and actually are pro-equal rights. Do it. I'd love to see you try.

Explain how they are racist and are anti-equal rights. You're the one obsessed with them and saying I am one despite me not being one. Explain your reasoning to the Libertarian. Even if I can spout off a few quips myself.

Actually, I don't even know what I'm doing. I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even understand that my political party is not Republican. But go ahead, say I'm a Republican. It'll totally make me sympathetic to your view.

All either of you are doing is telling me I am wrong for thinking a political party that constantly votes against equal rights and constantly creates laws and policies that attack and hurt minorities is bigoted.

No, I'm telling you that you're supporting a party that makes everything about the color of your skin or the bits dangling or not between your legs. I genuinely care about none of this.

So, without just showing me Trump holding a defiled rainbow flag or some self-hating person with a MAGA hat on, explain to me with actual evidence how Republicans are the good guys.

Saelune, do you see everything in black and white?

I'll wait. I am still waiting for Zontar to explain how Trump is pro-LGBT, but its been...jeez, 2 years since he said he would.

Zontar is kill and has been for that long. He's unlikely to ever come back.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Explain how they are racist and are anti-equal rights.

Well, probably a good place to start would be all the racist and anti-equality policies they push for and put in place, and all the courting of people boasting about their racism and anti-equality. Not like they are pretending very hard to be otherwise.

 

[tstorm823]

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

...Were you trying to quote Saelune or was that actually for me? If the latter, can you explain?

It was for you. You said you are not, never have been, and likely never will be a Republican, and I believe indicated you were once a Democrat. I took that as a dislike of Republicans, I apologize if that was an incorrect inference. But then you provided a beautiful description of what Democrats have done to the image of the Republican Party over the last 60 years. They took the party that brought this country every semblance of equality we have and repeatedly, deliberately tried to associate it with bigots until people believed it.

Explain to me how Republicans are not racist and actually are pro-equal rights. Do it. I'd love to see you try.

I won't be able to argue Republicans are "the good guys", that's not a reasonable standard. There are, of course, good Democrats and bad Republicans. If ever you managed to split the world between good and bad, the bad would figure out how to associate with the good. That's what's so offputting about political lipservice: if they're trying to sneak their way into the "good" category you immediately start questioning why they're actually awful.

But I can try to argue specifically "not racist" just by arguing against basically every charge of racism. People point to opposition to one civil rights act, but that was the one that flipped straight from "segregation is mandadtory" to "segregation is illegal" without any opportunity for people to decide what they want to do. That's not racism, that's actually essentially liberal. You want the perfect example, the political figure on which a lot of the "party flip" narrative is based is Barry Goldwater. He was a Civil Rights proponent who supported almost all Civil Rights legislation. He was a gay rights advocate later in life. He suggested that people opposed to a woman on the supreme court should be kicked in the nuts. But he thought one Civil Rights Act was federal overreach and bad precedent, and that was enough for Lyndon Johnson (actual racist) to air political ads of the KKK endorsing Goldwater.

People point to things like voter ID laws, comparing them to the literacy tests done in the past to disenfranchise black southerners, but it's a dumb comparison. There are voter id laws in more states than not, and little evidence it effects voter turnout whatsoever, despite the thousands of articles published about how racist voter ID laws are. It's actually on my list of 3 things alongside drugs and abortion where conversations on the internet have the plot twist where someone from a different country suddenly realizes their home country is actually stricter than the supposedly oppressive laws Republicans want. I don't think there's the rampant voter fraud they act like they're preventing, but I also think getting carded any place where you have to prove to be yourself is a lot more reasonable than archaic nonsense like maintaining paper signature books year to year.

People think opposition to welfare programs is based in racism. Not only does this totally disregard the actual Republican perspective that the programs they oppose are poorly formed and actually hurting people, presuming instead that Republicans want to hurt the poor, it also assumes Republicans believe that hurting the poor is a proxy for hurting minorities. It's a really slimy claim on every level.

Of course there are racist Republicans, but a lot of that is deliberately done by Democrats. They repeat over and over that Republicans are racist for a reason: the overwhelming majority of America would rather vote against racists than for them. And if some racists hear that they belong in the Republican Party and join it, that's really just good for Democrats. Racist Republicans are bad for the Republican party, they're just useful idiots being exploited by Democrats to gain political power. I just want to look the racists in the eyes and tell them "every racist thing you say pushes this nation towards socialism" and watch them struggle to figure out what they hate most.

 

[Leg End]

Well, probably a good place to start would be all the racist and anti-equality policies they push for and put in place

Examples of the racist policies? I can agree on some policies of anti-equality(along the lines of things relating to marriage), but I don't see any racist policies.