@LeBrok,
I don't think there's much use in continuing this discussion. Ever since the election you have been mostly posting opinions that are not based, in my opinion, on an objective analysis of the actual vote results, something that even the Michael Moore's of the world, and the New York Times have managed to do.
Instead, you seem to be trying to prove that your pre-election analysis was correct. It wasn't, and the data proves it. There's no shame in it; most people didn't get it right.
In terms of the Black Panthers, my point was that we shouldn't smear people based on the kind of fringe groups which endorse them. You posted that the KKK endorsed Trump and that's indicative of the fact that he's a white nationalist. Your only response to my hypothetical is that, well, Hillary Clinton didn't get elected, so we don't know if the Black Panthers would have been happy about it. I don't think that's a very strong response, but no matter.
If you want to stick to things groups have actually
done, let's examine that, shall we? It should have been obvious that my general point was, as I said, that we shouldn't smear people based on the kind of fringe groups that endorse them. The KKK endorsed Donald Trump. The Black Panthers went armed to polling places to intimidate white voters so that Obama would get elected. That equals endorsement in my book. What on earth is the real difference between the two situations? Both are terrible groups. I didn't blame Obama because of what the Black Panthers did, and I don't assume Trump is a secret KKK member because they endorsed him.
I don't endorse the opinions of the person who put this video on youtube. It's just the first one I found with footage of the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIvPr4KnYo0
I really don't see how any objective analysis of the situation could come to a different conclusion.
The rules should be applied to everyone as evenhandedly as possible. There shouldn't be any selective outrage. Period.
@Vallicanus,
Some would argue that it is precisely the rich who should stand for office, because they are beholden to no one, and they can pay for the campaigns themselves, instead of being bought by the George Soros' or Koch brothers of the world, take your pick.
@Board,
As to Trump's taste, his apartment looks just like his hotels and casinos. I certainly wouldn't want to live in it. However, neither would I want to live in the palaces of European royalty, many of which were also very gaudy.
Trump Tower:
http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ne/usny6625.jpeg
King Ludwig of Bavaria's Moorish fantasy in one of his castles:
This one has always seemed over the top to me too. Your eye doesn't even know where to settle:
However, what I think, and we think, is, I'm sure, a matter of supreme indifference to him. The richest people in the world are on waiting lists to get into a lot of his properties. He knows what they want. He couldn't care less what we think, since we can't afford them.
I do think living in the White House is going to be a shock to him. It's very small altogether, and the rooms are very small. Plus, all the staffers running around make it feel even smaller. It's very lovely, for my taste, but in a very 18th and 19th century American way. Of course, the private quarters are his to refurbish, but there's nothing he can do to make the area bigger, and all he can basically do is change the drapes and paper and rugs and things like that if they've gotten worn. If I were Melania, I don't know that I'd take my son out of school if he's doing well there, so I'd probably stay in New York during the week days.
One of my favorite rooms in the White House. (If you're going to go to Washington D.C. it's really worth it to write a couple of months ahead and see if you can get a ticket for a tour of the interior. I think they've resumed them after a hiatus.)
The private quarters: Master bedroom