Prelude to the Apocalypse

[quash]

Trump did incredible today. Fended off two professional lynch mobbers and got them to expose their true intentions on healthcare.

And this was by far Jeb!'s best debate.

[Mischief Maker]

Make Donald Drumpf Again!

[Rob]

People looove empty bravado, especially quash and others who are easily scammed.

[BryanM]

Hey that's our next president you guys are making light of.

I'm still processing the implications. Our country is fucked in the head.

I blame the boomers.

[BulletMagnet]

People looove empty bravado

He can't even get that right, as evidenced particularly effectively by his "responses" to the question of whether he'd refute the support of David Duke (of course, the fact that he got it in the first place is a problem in and of itself, not that he or his supporters would ever acknowledge as much); first he claims he has no idea who the guy is (which is itself ludicrous on its face even before you apply the "sorry, caught you in yet another blatant lie!" quote Oliver showcased), and shortly after that he says he misunderstood the question due to a faulty earpiece.

This is your tough-guy straight-talker? I don't think there's a more gutless, malleable sissy in the running, and that's saying even more than usual this year. If we weren't already such a hopeless plutocracy he'd never be able to show his face in public again.

[EmperorIng]

Make Donald Drumpf Again!

The stupidest bullshit to single out as the latest epic meme. It's even self-defeating, because anyone who isn't a facebook-trawler is going to look at this "new" hashtag phenom and say "who gives a shit?" It's almost as embarrassing as Rubio giving up all pretense of campaigning to clog the feeds of a million kids with the latest 1337 beatdowns.

People looove empty bravado

(of course, the fact that he got it in the first place is a problem in and of itself, not that he or his supporters would ever acknowledge as much)

Did you forget Obama's support from his pastor Jeremiah "Whites are genetically evil and the Jews brainwash us" Wright, along with his work with former terrorist bomber Bill "I don't regret setting the bombs, but I'm sorry people were hurt" Ayers? Or do political recollections only last a single term?

I'm not saying Trump is absolved of fucking up, but no candidate can control who endorses him/her (or in Obama's case, he can't seemingly control which terrorists he works with).

[Ed Oscuro]

Maybe those things are forgotten because they were purely political motivated lies, like the Swift Boat campaign. That scaremongering ultimately told us very little about Obama, who has turned out to be a big law-and-order President.

Wright was basically just loud and Ayers didn't have much of anything to do with Obama. David Duke likewise hasn't had much to do with Trump, but what makes the connection semi-newsworthy this time is that Duke clearly speaks for a lot of people who think Trump is the ticket to bring back the "good old days." Even if Ayers is somehow a part of this discussion, he's clearly questioned how useful his tactics were, which is more than you can say for Duke (and Trump).

Always good to be reminded of the alternate reality the Right lives in.

[EmperorIng]

Maybe those things are forgotten because they were purely political motivated lies

I want you to hold on to this thought, because it will become important further down.

Obama, who has turned out to be a big law-and-order President.

Talk about alternate reality. Where's the law and order? Certainly not through his foreign policy. Certainly not in the aftermath of the race riots. Certainly not in the financial sector. Obama is about as big a "law-and-order president" as George W Bush, which isn't saying much. Maybe I will give him pity points for the "let's close Guantanamo" stunt he trots out every few years whenever his poll numbers dip.

Wright was basically just loud and Ayers didn't have much of anything to do with Obama. David Duke likewise hasn't had much to do with Trump

I'm glad you agree with me on all fronts, but you hurt your own point when you keep on typing.

but what makes the connection semi-newsworthy this time is that Duke clearly speaks for a lot of people who think Trump is the ticket to bring back the "good old days."

Semi-newsworthy, fucking lol. You're just as clueless and forgetful. You also seem to forget these stories were newsworthy once... DURING THE LAST PRIMARIES. Do you see a coincidence here, or do I need to spell out my alternate reality to you. I'm amazed that people can waste so much text on explaining causes and principles without seeing the base mechanics of electioneering work, again and again over the years. My original point is that these stories do not matter, or if they do, it's only when the reader has already made up their mind beforehand. We have seen them before, we have read them before. Apparently that won't stop people from letting the news cycle play them like a fiddle.

Wright spoke for a racist fringe of blacks who supported Obama as a way of getting back at the evil white man. Duke spoke for a racist fringe (with a longer history or violence and terrorism) of whites who support Trump as a way of getting back at the evil black man. The candidates cannot control who support them. The best they can do is say "no thanks", which is what both candidates did after fumbling the initial response.

Always good to be reminded of the alternate reality the Right lives in.

For all the high-minded text spilled out in the name of arguing ideas and policy, it's very easy to slip back into group-think and whitewashing. Whatever labels keep you comfortable.

Our country is fucked in the head.

Hey, you Bernie kids better start making some memes of Hillary with the KKK senator Byrd fast, or else she just might end up stealing that "black vote" (Clintons stealing from blacks what a thought lol). Come on, I thought you guys were on top of this; don't let me down.

[quash]

People looove empty bravado, especially quash and others who are easily scammed.

A part of me wants Bernie to win just so I could see firsthand the cries of "Damnit! Fooled again!" as he fails to deliver on promise after promise. But it looks like the Democrats actually are that stupid and will be putting Hillary on the chopping block.

As for for the KKK thing, all I'll say is this: be careful how you try to frame the narrative.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wow, that's a masterpiece of missing the point in depth. By "law and order" I mean Obama clearly has had nothing in common with the anarchist rhetoric that was meant to scare voters away from him, or are you really this dense?

Trump himself has admitted he screwed up in handling the Duke endorsement (as close as he ever does - a "bad earpiece" is what he's calling it now), so you're not terribly smart to try and spin that either.

Back to the past, which you are not only forgetful of, but inattentive to and deluded about: Obama getting smeared with shit about Ayers that wasn't true, and John Kerry as well, has nothing to do with a sleazy politician trying to have it both ways with the premier hate organization in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayer ... ontroversy

It's just a few sentences, so even Ing Who Doesn't Like Obamacare should be able to comprehend it. Clue: Obama had no relationship with Ayers, so you're just repeating a stupid lie. And you should be ashamed.

A part of me wants Bernie to win just so I could see firsthand the cries of "Damnit! Fooled again!" as he fails to deliver on promise after promise.

Sounds like you're voting for Clinton or Cruz then, because Trump would just get his dumb ass impeached.

[Opus131]

Hey that's our next president you guys are making light of.

I'm still processing the implications. Our country is fucked in the head.

I blame the boomers.

You guys made his victory possible. Why complain now?

Case in point:

Make Donald Drumpf Again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrBPN3Lybeg

[Opus131]

Trump himself has admitted he screwed up in handling the Duke endorsement

How did he screw that up? His answer was brilliant. He basically told the reporter to fuck off and didn't allow himself to be put on the defensive. This is precisely how Trump has won every single one of those exchanges.

[EmperorIng]

lol, trying to one-up a Chicagoan on Chicago. You forget that Obama and Ayers are hometown boys.

Don't call me forgetful when it's clear you don't have a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayer ... ontroversy

Let's first see what I wrote:

along with his work with former terrorist bomber Bill "I don't regret setting the bombs, but I'm sorry people were hurt" Ayers

Ayers helped Obama when he was just getting started when he ran to replace a state senator who was a friend of Ayers'. They had a relationship network through patronage (Ayers' family being close to our unelected thug of a mayor) and shared interests. They even did "work together", no matter how you slice it. In fact, let's peruse some local news:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008 ... -and-ayers

The [University of Illinois Chicago] records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.

At a Democratic debate this year when the association between Obama and Ayers was raised, Obama said: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. ... He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." Obama called Ayers' past radical acts detestable.

But critics note that Obama visited Ayers' home for a meeting at the start of his first state Senate bid in the mid-'90s.

The classic Chicago cynicism:

Ayers is a terrorist -- the narcissistic son of privilege and clout -- whose father, Thomas, was the boss of Commonwealth Edison and a friend of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley. As a leader of the ultraviolent Weather Underground, Ayers admitted to helping bomb the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s. He should have been sent to prison. Instead, Chicago political clout allowed him and his wife, fellow radical Bernardine Dohrn, to magically join the payrolls of universities here.

Obama says he was 8 years old when the bombs went off. But he was a grown man when he sought Ayers' political blessing, and when they worked on the same education projects.

In fact, even if you argue this is still a minimal relationship, and there was no exchange of ideas (which can be a fair argument), you certainly can't argue that this is less of a relationship than David Duke saying "Vote for Trump." Ironically, you missed my point from the beginning that these stories are just that. Smear tactics and "politically motivated lies." I even said earlier "I'm not saying Trump is absolved of fucking up". quash's video actually brings up a nice punctuation to all of this: no one should give a shit about Duke and no one should give a shit about Ayers, which was my original argument - candidates can't control who endorse them (I'm reminded that Duke endorsed Ron Paul of all people). The stories created by the latest controversy will fade like the Ayers stories for the same reasons you mentioned.

If we're going to be tribal, let's at least be honest about it and not pretend we are engaging in some high-minded civic discourse.

So here's where I get to be tart: wouldn't it be nice if you laid off that "brain damaged" bullshit* [EDIT: now of the more politely-stated variety**]; I know how my shit town operates (and it's not fairly). Extra LOL at implying Obama isn't sleazy - cozy connections between him, our current mayor (and his former chief of staff), and Bill Daley, brother of thug Mayor Daley (also Obama's one-time chief of staff). But maybe this isn't noticed if you're not a local boy. Obama has been playing the "have it both ways" game for as long as he's been in office, but to different crowds.

*Did I ever apologize about the Salon joke? I meant to! No sane person would ever go there to get information.
**I wonder if in some minds there is a link between not liking Obamacare and being brain damaged. Who knows!

[Opus131]

In other news, Louis Farrakhan praised Trump for saying he doesn't want Jewish money:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... ng_jews_i/

Wonder if Trump will be asked about why he is being praised by a noted black supremacist and anti-semite.

[BulletMagnet]

The candidates cannot control who support them. The best they can do is say "no thanks", which is what both candidates did after fumbling the initial response.

The difference is that Obama was never attempting to court the "angry black vote" (if such a thing even exists to a significant extent, let alone could be sought without far too much backlash to make it worth it), except in the diseased minds of Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy theorists who insist that Obama hates whites for some reason, despite his own family being half white (though most of them, straight-talking truth-tellers that they are, have by now switched to wailing about how poorly he's served the black community during his tenure). Trump's anti-immigrant platform in particular is and always has been an open, unapologetic appeal to xenophobic voters; endorsements from the likes of Duke were a foregone conclusion from the start, and Trump has largely chosen to take the same stance Reagan did when the John Birch society endorsed him, i.e. "yeah, I know they're horrible people, but I'll still take their votes".

[Xyga]

What a mess this campaign is.
I'm fearing my cuntry's general election next year will be even worse. Our local political landscape hit rock bottom and all potential candidates are pretty much useless trash. Not even one scenario I can think of where things would improve whether it's on the national or European scale.
*Morbo* "DOOM!"

[Mischief Maker]

[Opus131]

The difference is that Obama was never attempting to court the "angry black vote" (if such a thing even exists to a significant extent, let alone could be sought without far too much backlash to make it worth it), except in the diseased minds of Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy theorists who insist that Obama hates whites for some reason, despite his own family being half white (though most of them, straight-talking truth-tellers that they are, have by now switched to wailing about how poorly he's served the black community during his tenure). Trump's anti-immigrant platform in particular is and always has been an open, unapologetic appeal to xenophobic voters; endorsements from the likes of Duke were a foregone conclusion from the start, and Trump has largely chosen to take the same stance Reagan did when the John Birch society endorsed him, i.e. "yeah, I know they're horrible people, but I'll still take their votes".

Dude, you can't be serious. Talk about having your biases inform your reality.

[charlie chong]

https://twitter.com/suzmalaca/status/703953271057203201

as i've said before trump is a financial crook,his dad was kkk,he is a neo fascist and he is also probably a peadophile given the fact he was flying round on epstein's plane and the girl who said she was abused by prince andrew etc used to work for trump in florida.
this is all that needs to be said

[BryanM]

A part of me wants Bernie to win just so I could see firsthand the cries of "Damnit! Fooled again!" as he fails to deliver on promise after promise.

Obama kept almost every single promise he made. It's not his fault people inferred incorrect things from his vague platitudes or failed to observe he was a wall street stooge from his funding. Much like people are viewing Trump as some kind of awesome dad who'll take care of whitey and get rid of the funny looking people. Obama has been a great 1980's republican.

The first thing Bernie would do if elected president is demand that we demand publicly financed elections. Which is why the entire media, from MSNBC to ABC to Plutocrat Broadcasting Station and Radio have thrown everything against him to defeat him. Can't allow even a shred of liberation.

If the media actually did any journalism, Clinton and Trump would not be doing as well as they have. Trump in particular is a magnificent bastard, using our retarded propaganda outlets as a weapon against ourselves. He's the fraud president we need in this hard time of the end of the world.

[Mischief Maker]

lol, trying to one-up a Chicagoan on Chicago.

Well rectify something for me. If the real driving force for you is anger over the misdeeds of Chicago Unions, why are you running into the arms of the one candidate who's most notoriously mobbed up?

[Obscura]

Always good to be reminded of the alternate reality the Right lives in.

Coming from someone who would vote for Sanders if he was somehow able to win the nomination, and would prefer Clinton over any of the Republican candidates (although she's still repulsive), EmperorIng is right on this one.

Trump isn't a KKK member, he doesn't have any meaningful connection to David Duke aside from the spurious "but his daddy was in the KKK!" argument (never mind that EVERY white guy in his dad's generation who had some money was a KKK member), and the left trying to create such associations is nothing more than the right trying to associate Obama with Ayers and Wright.

BTW, Trump has supported both Reid and Clinton in the past. If you think the reason that the Republicans are trying desperately to make sure he doesn't get the nomination because of electability concerns, when he's shown that he's the best candidate they've ever had for energizing the right-wing base in close to thirty years, you're stupid.

[EmperorIng]

lol, trying to one-up a Chicagoan on Chicago.

Well rectify something for me. If the real driving force for you is anger over the misdeeds of Chicago Unions, why are you running into the arms of the one candidate who's most notoriously mobbed up?

Not unions in particular, though the Chicago public sector unions and the Illinois Democrat Party are so notoriously corrupt* that it is amazing if voter turnout pushes past 25% in our elections. It gave me a big lol to have Hillary, who grew up in Chicago, come to the city recently and blame all the state's problems on Republicans, who haven't controlled Illinois for decades (they had like, 2 years in the 90s). She is very much alike with the Illinois Dems in that she survives totally on crooked patronage and partisan hate-mongering. Which is why while I think Sanders' plans are chimeric, I have infinitely more respect for him.

I also haven't made up my mind about who I'm voting for yet in our primaries; most of my favorite candidates have already dropped out.

*remember when our joke of an ex-governor was caught trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat? And then his wife participated on Survivor to advocate his innocence!!!

[BryanM]

Yeah, that was a fine moment in american history.

How fucking crazy would it be if politicians actually had to do things people want them to do.

[EmperorIng]

How fucking crazy would it be if politicians actually had to do things people want them to do.

I suppose then you would have scary men like Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt become president and revive the horrors of bank-stomping and trust-busting. I think we might agree on some very common core principles!

If you think the reason that the Republicans are trying desperately to make sure he doesn't get the nomination because of electability concerns, when he's shown that he's the best candidate they've ever had for energizing the right-wing base in close to thirty years, you're stupid.

I read two [very] recent articles I think are worth bringing up: former big-time GOP neocon war-mongers are already leaving the Republican ranks to shore up Hillary Clinton. I expect most to follow suit should Rubio falter today. I believe it speaks to why the Republican leadership is so afraid.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why ... agan-15329

The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic Party. George McGovern’s run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency, sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.

But it wasn’t until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... alignment/

Beyond the personal attacks, and the prospect of their escalation, there has been important intellectual shadow boxing behind the scenes. The escalation of personal rhetoric has meant that there is now no chance that Rubio would be selected as Trump veep, which would be one way in which neoconservatives could enter the foreign-policy apparatus of the next administration. It has long been clear that Rubio represented the neoconservatives’ best chance for restoration: his campaign was overlaid with a kind of neocon signaling, from the core “New American Century” slogan (evocative of PNAC) to the prominence of certain advisors, to the hawkish positions on every conceivable foreign policy issue, to the the lockstep adherence to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s positions.

...

Whether he deserves it in any meaningful sense or not, Trump is clearly reliant on working-class support in his bid for the GOP nomination. That is his base, people who have voted Republican for two generations now and received nothing in return but seeing their kids sent to war, the loss of good jobs, and declining living standards. They want, as Corey Stewart says, to “shake things up” and don’t care if it’s done in a politically correct way. If that push continues, and the neoconservatives continue their migration towards Hillary, the end result will a race in which the Republican candidate is running to the left of the Democratic candidate, at least in terms of the social base of his coalition and on foreign policy. This would amount to a major realignment in American politics, certainly one more dramatic than anything we’ve seen in the postwar era.

[Ed Oscuro]

Man, look at all the crazy people showing up in this thread.

Look folks - Trump doesn't care about you. He's not going to treat you any better than his best ally. Of course, which Trump you actually get is always a question. Is it the Trump who claims to be ignorant about the outside world? Is it the Trump who says he will stand alone and needs no endorsements from anybody (as he did in connection with the Duke endorsement)? Or is it the Trump who happily eats up endorsements but then shoves his "friends" out of the way?

the left trying to create such associations is nothing more than the right trying to associate Obama with Ayers and Wright.

Wrong, Trump has been deliberately painting himself as a beacon to those types. He has been deliberately pandering to them. The talk of Mexicans as rapists and murderers, painting Muslim citizens as terrorists - of course he wants the KKK vote. The only thing that changed this time is that there was a name to attach to the sound bite and he got called to question about it.

Duke made the endorsement, and the media reported on it. This is totally different from right-wingers cooking up lies about Obama's connections with Ayers (who didn't hurt anybody, by the way, but don't let facts stop you guys now).

BTW, Trump has supported both Reid and Clinton in the past.

Yes, yes, we had this discussion back in the opening pages of the thread. How is this evidence of anything other than Trump being opportunistic swine?

If you think the reason that the Republicans are trying desperately to make sure he doesn't get the nomination because of electability concerns, when he's shown that he's the best candidate they've ever had for energizing the right-wing base in close to thirty years, you're stupid.

So it's a pure coincidence "energizing the right-wing base" works just as well on the KKK? What matters to you in a candidate is just how well they are able to draw votes, regardless of principles? You are aware there are different varieties of evil, right?

Hey, have fun playing with your strawman there. We went over this stuff in depth in the opening pages of this thread, way back; welcome to the party bud! Maybe soon you'll be up to our speed on Trump too.

[BryanM]

To be blunt, I'm dead serious about the necessity of going into full blown denial mode while you're in the fetal position for the coming months. Some extreme lies you need to repeat as a mantra:

* Trump isn't that bad.

* He'll get us single payer universal medicare.

* He isn't gonna overthrow Assad or escalate tensions with Russia.

* He'll raise the minimum wage slightly.

* He'll only trim taxes on the very wealthy a little bit.

* He'll totally raise taxes on hedge fund bastards to pay the same as the other richers do.

* He will be a fun and entertaining fraud president.

While you're in this ball babbling this nonsense to yourself, you should have Komm Süsser Tod playing on a loop in the background. That's my recommendation. As a licensed internet therapist.

Today is the day you need to start this routine. Today. Right now. You need to start lying to yourself. Today. Right. Now.

Today. In the moment. In the instant. That which is. Right now.

[Ed Oscuro]

Good post Bryan

Speaking of thread pollution, but Ing is becoming the Bill Kristol of Shmups Forum. Where Kristol's difficulty is in predictions, Ing has trouble with basic facts. In short, when Ing channels the right-wing hive-mind, you can be sure the truth is the reverse of what he says. Ing was wrong about Marx and capitalism, Ing is wrong about Ayers, Wright, and Obama, and in fact I'm having a difficulty remembering when Ing wasn't showing up just to be defiantly wrong about something.

Since today's edition is "shit ignorant people still are fighting over," let's talk about Bill Ayers. Ayers did not say he was happy with setting bombs but was sorry people were hurt - in fact he said things which were totally different in this interview which apparently is the source of the spun quotes Ing has thoughtfully shared with us. The article actually says, as opposed to the Bizarro-world version Ing believes in, this:

“I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more shit.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.”

and

“We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves.”

This is all factually true, and (again, unlike Duke) Ayers clearly has distanced himself from the politics of hate and violence in the years since.

Ayers never went to jail because the incompetent Hoover FBI used illegal methods to try and secure the arrests.

This was the period of COINTELPRO where the FBI deliberately sought to provoke murders of black activists, and when the police outright assassinated Jackie Hampton.

Frankly, that a kid in the '60s didn't know how to organize against a horrific war should be no surprise. What should be surprising is that the supposedly mature government of the nation allowed its police force to act as they did. (And, in closing, it is in reference to events like these that Jeremiah Wright made his comments about "the chickens come home to roost." Please, somebody, find me something in the comments Wright actually made that is not so different from what our European and UK expat members have said about the US. Some of what Wright said is just a matter of record, in fact, while the rest is conspiracy theorizing in service of a larger point.)

[EmperorIng]

lol at the ass-hurt Ed

Duke made the endorsement, and the media reported on it. This is totally different from right-wingers cooking up lies about Obama's connections with Ayers (who didn't hurt anybody, by the way, but don't let facts stop you guys now).

Hard to believe you still claim that there was some conspiracy to invent ties between Ayers and Obama, after I posted factual evidence to the contrary. Extra lol at your rationalization of the idiot himself: I suppose as long as nobody gets hurt, it's ok to set off bombs in the Pentagon and Capitol. Get a grip. Do you have to go to such lengths to protect Obama that you have to defend some two-bit rich daddy's-boy terrorist "h- he wasn't that bad, guys! Ch- ch- check the facts!" I don't know what your dog in this fight is, but it can't be a healthy one. If we want to bring up the politics of past associations, why stop at only one or two bad eggs? I know plenty of people who protested the Vietnam war who didn't have to resort to their cushion of personal family influence to shield themselves from the law. Bottom-line: Ayers is a delusional fraud not worthy of attention, much like David Duke.

So it's a pure coincidence "energizing the right-wing base" works just as well on the KKK?

I actually find this sentiment a little strange, because if we took this idea, that ultra-anti-immigration rhetoric would draw out the support of these fringe groups, to its logical conclusion, why hasn't Ted Cruz, whose stances on immigration are even more hard-line and potentially toxic, garnered more support from the GOP base?

[Ed Oscuro]

Ing, I would highly appreciate it if you stick to the discussion and not try to spread more lies. Nowhere have I said that the Weather Underground's tactics were right, but as usual this is a distinction too subtle for your brain.

What "factual evidence?" I have put down the actual quotes; Ayers said absolutely nothing like what you claim he did. Ayers in 1995, the first time he met Obama, was a totally different person than he was in the 1960s, and the whole thrust of the "Obama loves terrorist bomber Ayers" angle was that he was supposedly going to be the '60s-style Radical-in-Chief, as some fool at the Daily Mail put it:

Those (like me) who know the Left-wing codes notice things about Obama that suggest he is far more radical than he would like us to know.

Obama has shown nothing of this supposed radical in his tenure at the White House.

So please, stop asserting that you have done things you didn't, and please please PLEASE stop denying things which have already been settled, you're just embarrassing us all.

So it's a pure coincidence "energizing the right-wing base" works just as well on the KKK?

I actually find this sentiment a little strange, because if we took this idea, that ultra-anti-immigration rhetoric would draw out the support of these fringe groups, to its logical conclusion, why hasn't Ted Cruz, whose stances on immigration are even more hard-line and potentially toxic, garnered more support from the GOP base?

I'm sure it's very puzzling to you that the KKK would prefer a highly entertaining blond-haired blue-eyed fellow with a German name who makes statements calling Mexicans rapists and Muslims terrorists, over the son of a Cuban immigrant whose deal isn't outright racism but severe right-wing libertarian principles.

I would suggest to you this is your opportunity to ask yourself the question: "Why am I having trouble paying attention to simple things?"