There are far more examples of people on the right being bigots (as you're doing here) and racists, but you decry those videos as not showing the truth because they're only one example. So how is this flimsy video showing a poor person who has been fooled by the right into supporting them against her best interests showing the truth for all 'liberals'?

I'm only critical of this guy because he was part of the media establishment that cried wolf repeatedly and created the hyperbolic partisan swamp we live in today. You keep calling George W. Bush the second coming of Hitler, and guess what? When there's finally a candidate worthy of a Hitler comparison, nobody's going to believe it. The only people who believe that Trump has said strong man dictatorial and racist type statements are Democrats for the most part, even though Trump totally said those things.

No matter how dishonest Hillary Clinton may have been about her email and what not, she's not a racist bigot.

But it doesn't matter. Most of the country is so partisan they can't consider voting for the other candidate that doesn't match their political leanings/party. Whatever moderates are left think both candidates equally suck. They hear about how bad Trump is, and they just think Clinton is right there with him, or they dismiss things too outlandish they don't want to believe a major party's nominee would actually say that.

And that's this election. Despite my misgivings about Clinton, she is by far the obvious choice and desperately needs to be elected because Trump is so jaw droppingly awful.

But good luck convincing people of thinking that if they don't already. And a lot of that is because we the people demand partisan hackery and media hyperbole instead of the truth about the complex world we live in, and the media was oh so eager to give us what we wanted to make a buck.

I still can't vote for the Republican trainwreck, I'd rather vote for a corpse with a decent human as the VP pick than the delusional bigot and Mike Pence.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

In general, there's a pretty friendly rivalry between the two countries, mostly around sport (we beat them at rugby, they beat us at cricket).

But the countries are actually politically and culturally pretty close, and there's a real sense of comradeship in relation to shared military history (see ANZACs).

All that said, there are some genuine issues of contention, especially right now. The two countries both allow citizens of the other to live and work there. Given that Australia is the larger economy, this mostly means kiwis going to Aussie looking for work.

So there is a perception among some Australians that Kiwis are somehow both stealing their jobs and also lazy dole bludgers (hey, no one said bigots had to be internally consistent).

In fact, this is completely the opposite of reality. Australians who come to NZ are basically NZ citizens in all but name. They are entitled to unemplyoment benefit, whereas Kiwis in Australia do not have the same benefits.

There is also currently an issue around detention and deportation of Kiwis, where Kiwis in Australia (many of whom have lived most of their lives in Australia) who have been committed of crimes are being deported back to NZ after completing their sentences. This often means they are held in refugee-style detention centres while awaiting deportation and are being sent back to a country away from their families.

In this specific instance, I'm guessing it's because the kid in the video is of Maori or Polynesian descent.

Disclaimer: I'm an Irish guy living in NZ who spent two years in Sydney, so this is a slightly outsider take.

What they mean is, they want to say all the racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynist bullshit they can spew out. And still have everyone like, respect and not marginalize them afterwards.

You cut a definition from somewhere that doesn't fit common usage of the word. The common usage of the word defines the definition. Dictionaries record the common usage.

The statement the interview quoted, in the clip in question, was not bigoted.

The clip in question does not reflect your assertion. In it he says he only wants to disallow radicalised Muslims, allowing the rest to enter the country.

I'm right, but you're entitled to disagree.

I'm glad you're exiting the conversation. You show a deep disregard for facts and can't perform a nuanced analysis of a simple video clip. You have an evident loathing of Trump (whom I don't care for one way or another) and do not demonstrate objective thinking.

Maybe, but you don't get to define words. The dictionary does, that's where I cut and pasted the definition from.

1)difference of opinion. Absolutely was that.
2) It was clearly outright bigoted statements and implications, and innuendo.
3) Perhaps, but his plan is to not allow ANY Muslims in. That's the definition of bigoted. Putting everyone on prison until you can figure out how to determine who's criminal....bigoted. he does NOT accept that non-radicalized Muslims exist, he blames them ALL for not turning in the 'radicals', painting them all as radical. You know he CLAIMS there's no vetting system in place at all for refugees, completely ignorant of the truth which is that it's incredibly hard and takes around 2 years for a refugee to be accepted.
4)wrong.

OK, since you can't understand the language and want to fight over dictionary definitions you don't understand, this conversation is over.
Enjoy your ignorance and naiveté.

I already defined bigoted farther up the thread.

But again, back to the Oxford:

Bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Even dictionary.com gets it right this time. I don't know where you got your definition of "bigot".

1) It wasn't any of those though.
2) It wasn't bigoted innuendo though.
3) Not wanting to allow radicalised muslims who will engage in criminal behaviour into your country (which is what this is about) is not bigoted (just as you aren't considered bigoted for not wanting criminals engaging in criminal behaviour in the community). Making a temporary ban until you can institute a more rigorous vetting process is not bigoted. I.e. he accepts non-radicalised Muslims and their views, but they will have temporary visa restrictions until a better vetting system is in place.
4) Assuming the worst about a group is not bigotry. Being intolerant of the group's views is.

No, since they aren't bigotry, they couldn't be used as examples in a dictionary.

Saying disparaging things about a group is not bigotry. E.g. someone could say "I fucking hate Australians, they suck". That's not bigotry. Or, "All Australian's are dicks". Also not bigotry. Now on the other hand if they said, "I don't accept the views or opinions of Australians", then that is bigotry.

In response to your response.....the definition....
Bigotry-intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Bigot-a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

1) It is bigotry if they're revoked based on race, religion, sexual preference, difference of opinion, or any other groupings.
2) It is if it's bigoted innuendo.
3) Not wanting to allow Muslims (specifically Middle Eastern Muslims) into your country because you unfairly purport that they're all radical Islamists is bigotry.
4) Assuming the worst about Muslims as a group is bigotry.

It's a bit funny, because all the things you mentioned could be listed as examples of bigotry in the dictionary.

If he's wrong, and he knows it, about something disparaging he said about some group, that's a "bigoted lie".

As for the Supreme Court nomination (not appointment), you are technically correct with your statement, but not your meaning, his "litmus test" for acceptable nominees would be bigoted if it starts with "they must revoke the rights of [group X that I disagree with so doesn't deserve equal rights]".

In response to that link:
Revoking press passes to private events is not bigotry.
Vague innuendo is not bigotry.
Not wanting radical Islamists in your country is not bigotry.
Putting a temporary travel ban on foreign nationals from entering your country as a protective measure is not bigotry.
Being possibly wrong about Muslims protecting other radicalised Muslims within the American community is not bigotry.
If he is wrong, being wrong is not a "bigoted lie".
Appointing Supreme Court judges who may possibly (at their own discretion) overturn previous rulings is not bigoted.

What this ignorant asshole doesn't realize is that Muslims and homosexuals are not "favored" groups by progressives. They are just not UN-FAVORED, as in we're not a bunch of racist bigots spreading lies and hate aka 'God's will'. Big difference.

If you're appalled at him then you more than likely have confirmation bias.

I'm going to guess that there is not much that Trump says that doesn't greatly irk you.

I don't think narcissism (love of oneself) or bigotry (intolerance of others) can be easily mixed up. On the other hand the label of bigot is often misused.

I don't think anyone who ever thought it was (IS) ridiculous that a reality TV clown like Trump would be the nominee for president is an idiot.

The reality is in the general election Trump really is an awful candidate. Within the GOP his bigoted, misogynistic, USA cheer-leading really touched a nerve with the exact group you'd expect it too.

I think the sad surprise is that there are so many more of them in the GOP then we realized.