Oh no!!!

If you haven’t noticed, I’m not Bob. I decide my positions on my own, and while I’m socially liberal, that doesn’t mean I agree with the “liberal” positions at all times. I’m not insulted at my position being called “conservative”….I’m not tribalistic that way.

EG-I’m pro gun….but very pro regulation.

I’m actually a fiscal conservative, but unlike the right I know that doesn’t really mean the government should only pay for the military and nothing more. I agree with any spending that saves billions or trillions overall, even when it means some people get a free ride.
I think police are a good idea, although I believe they need serious reforms because they have lost their mission completely.
I think public roads are a good thing, as are public water and power systems.
I think national health care is a no brainer that works well in almost every country and saves trillions per year.
I think a safety net is a good idea...give people something to lose so they don’t turn to crime because they have nothing to lose.

Edit: I’ve said most of my adult life that I would be a Republican if only they would. Today’s Con has no resemblance to the Republican party I thought I grew up with (my entire family was hard core R).
Fiscal sanity, gone. Caring about the environment, gone. Supporting facts and science, gone. Supporting small government, gone (except with lip service). Strong and enforced gun regulations to protect gun ownership rights, gone. Strict supporters of law and order, not anymore. Government out of private life, so incredibly gone. Separation of church and state, gone. Fans of democracy, gone. Honesty, not even a memory.
I’m only a “blue liberal” by default. I might be libertarian if they weren’t crazed anti government extremists and almost MAGA.
Dems are the only ones left that really believe in democratic government.


I agree that 40 years+ without parole is cruel, but certainly not unusual or excessive. I never understand why excessively long prison sentences are considered less than the death penalty…I’m claustrophobic, to me it would be 40+ years of panic. I would give myself the death penalty fairly quickly because I’m not brave enough to face that. Swallow my tongue or bite it off, either works just fine and can’t be stopped. I’m really shocked that’s not the norm, but I’ve (clearly) never had to face it.

I wonder what these Republicans behind the Lincoln Project will do after November though, win or lose? They themselves made Trump a reality through a cumulative process of dividing and dumbing down America for decades. You think Trump is a freak show? No, it's their modern-day ideological standard bearing manifest, just magnified by a factor of 10. Some republicans just don't agree HOW Trump says things, not what he DOES. I don't see they can come up with a leader nearing worthy of bearing the mantle of the classic "GOP" of "Lincoln." It's been FUBAR.

You want for Fiscal Conservative & Social Liberals (nevermind whether you can really balance the two IRL with that much debt and social ills already)? Look elsewhere, it's not in the GOP.

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

What about me? I do all those things and more. I didn't just change my own brakes, I swapped my own motor. I don't just plow my field, I sow, weed, and harvest that field. I've not only repaired a roof, I've built a few. I know hard work, I was a one man desert racing crew. Now that's hard work, being mechanic, transporter, driver, and pit crew....all at 112 degrees.

So, why don't I love Trump? Because I'm a real conservative....ecologically conservative, fiscally conservative, fact based, socially liberal (the government has no place in my bedroom or my body), and insistent on honesty.

Republicans abandoned conservatism before I could vote.

THEY fear us now like one fears the 100lb ranting sore ridden meth head at the bus stop, not for our strength and resolve, but our dangerous unpredictability and diseases.

If you truly like this site, why do you constantly and consistently denigrate it in your comments?
I would bet that at least 90% of internet trolls would say the same thing...'I'm not a troll, I just hate (or-"have to hold my nose at posting" of 'X') most everything and everyone on or about this site and I'm going to tell you about what I see as it's problems and foibles daily. I have every right to express my opinion.'...yes, you have a right...but they way you go about it makes you a troll, IMO.

If I went to a right wing leaning message board and, daily, told them what misguided morons they all are, and how the site is worthless because it's nothing more than a bastion for the idiot right and all the misguided, America hating morons in it, I would be a troll. It would be obvious that I would not be intending to change minds, only to insult and lambast those I disagree with.

Please to explain...how are you different in the way you post here?

EDIT: Ultra left DOJ!!!! I was rolling on the floor at that one buddy, good one.
Almost as funny as you calling yourself "conservative"...what you are is a neo-con...which means you want to return to a past that never existed...a "new" (imaginary) past you wish to conserve...therefore "neo-con".
I am actually an old school republican, which are fiscally 'conservative' (which means we try to conserve our funds by spending them wisely on programs that save money as a whole, like upkeep of infrastructure...not the same thing as removing all spending/taxation)
-and a social liberal (Yes, real republicans are (were) anti-war, anti-corporatist, anti-religion in government, pro-environment, pro-freedom to choose your own morality, actual thinkers. Regan changed all that 180 deg. Now I have NO party that represents me. It's hilarious to hear you guys call me a "lefty" over and over!)

@ChaosEngine

If anything, it's an indication of just how polarised view points really are between generally republican and democrat positions.

I'm sure as an industry body, slanting their PR convention towards aligning with conservative values was calculated based on solid data that said that the number of socially liberal supporters they alienate will be vastly outnumbered by the conservative supporters they can fire up.

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

Well on this chart libertarian is used in a social sense. RP is not socially liberal, just more so than most of the candidates.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It turns out all of us are more libertarian than Ron Paul. >> ^dag:
I'm more Libertarian then I thought.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.00&soc=-8.46


Ron Paul 2012!! or something ... I guess.

Please do not confuse classical liberalism (now known as libertarianism) with the marxist and communist twaddle known as "modern liberalism", a preventable mental disorder that will be the ruin of Western Civ.

Political correctness is your training program to be a good slave.

YOUR training, not mine, Numbnuts.




>> ^Fade:

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.
Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:
The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.

Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:

The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

And, IMO, the worst part of the American political system is partisan politics, and its grown to a level of extremism that it could only hope to be challenged by a well established and respectable 3rd party (perhaps a party of the 99%... food for thought?).

The addition of a third, 4th, 5th, or 10th party would do nothing to resolve partisan politics. A lot of people think the 2 party system is poison, and multiple party systems are some sort of nirvanah. A 1 second analysis of parlimentarian political entities dispells that illusion. Systems with more parties - if anything - become even more contentous, fragmented, and full of partisanship than ever. The amount of skullduggery is amazing. The common man becomes even more distant from the political system, because the dizzying level of alliances, promises made/broken, and other shenanigans that take place to engineer a 'majority' on a vote essentially render any one party non-existent.

This is a bubble that really needs to be popped. I'm not saying the 2 party system is good. Quite often I feel very disenfranchised by the 2 party system because my perspective as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, constitutional constructionist are rarely represented to my tastes. But the opinion that the addition of a 3rd party would in any way address the rancorous nature of US politics is simply incorrect.

Socially liberal? Bull...

Like most leftists, you probably approach this from the biased perception of your own political position. You occupy a much further 'left' position than I do, therefore your perception bais tells you that I am not 'left' because I am to the right of yourself. However, you must simply accept the reality that your position is much further left than the national average.

As a person with libertarian leanings, I have the socially liberal position that abortion is the choice of the individual - not the government. I also tend to agree that the war on drugs is not really government's proper role, but that the states should be allowed to legalize some drugs for medicinal purposes. Quite a few of my political positions are 'liberal' or 'centrist' because I come from a consistent position that it is not the government's role to limit the freedoms of citizens.

Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on

Well, first we don't know if they 'mis-reported'. That's an allegation. Regardless, since when has that ever stopped the media? Waiting for the 'facts' is not a habit of the news media in general and is in no way limited to either Fox & Friends, or this woman's story. I don't dispute that implies that the news media has no soul. But if we harp on it, then fairness demands equal harping on news outlet who discusses anything without the facts first. If we don't do that, but reserve our outrage only for cases for persons whom we ideologically sympathize with, then what does that say?

There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The OWS hippies have no 'terms' or 'complaints' or other specific 'demands' that they are willing to articulate. There are other videos and comments on the sift on how BRILLIANT OWS is because they refuse to have a leader, a position, a platform, or anything else that pins them down. Please tell me how anyone is supposed to have a meaningful dialog with a group that has no set of real complaints to address?

Regardless, the OWS movement is not the subject of a 'smear'. If anything, the bulk of the news media is engaged in massive cover-ups of thier daily crimes and abuses. There isn't a day that goes by now where there aren't reports of sexual abuse, rapes, theft, violence, arrests, property damage, and other violations of the law. Even Bloomberg - who has gone out of his way to slobber all over OWS - is starting to say they are going to have to take steps to deal with thier crimes and disruption. No one needs to smear OWS falsely. They do just fine smearing themselves.

Socially liberal?

Bullshit.

And I say that after viewing you from as many angles as possible, coming to a conclusion, and then stating my perspective from a position of informed certitude.

I'd say that's the problem right there. The black and white thinking of someone much more on the conservative end of things than I think you are admitting to.

I've never said I wasn't conservative. I've said many times that I'm quite fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, and a constitutional constructionist. But I certainly do not ascribe to the kind of moral relativism where everyting is 'grey' and there is no right or wrong. If that makes me 'conservative' then so be it.

However, you didn't wait for them before opining.

This woman's story hit almost 2 weeks ago. I waited over a week before saying a peep, but when I did hear about it I tried to find out more data.

I think the main point was -- why do you need any facts at all about this woman?

Because in order to properly judge F&F you need to know the facts. F&F is guilty of nothing except judging the gal based on what data they had at the time. At the time, the reports were "this woman left her family and is shacking up with some OWS dude". They jumped the gun because they didn't have "the facts" and you are saying "why do we need any facts?" Uh - we need the fact so we can form a proper conclusion about her. Dur. If her family is cool with what she did - more power to her. If they aren't - then she is - in fact - a slimeball.

And you have soooo many opinions about her lack of character based on a few minutes of video.

If you read carefully, you'll note I've never stated my opinion about HER. I've always said, "if". If she did this... If her husband was... If. I have stated my opinions about what she did "IF". There's a difference.

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.