Poll: Hillary Clinton Dominates Donald Trump in Silicon Valley

With the November presidential election approaching, Silicon Valley voters are in favor of electing Hillary Clinton by a landslide, according to a new poll.

Late last month, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) conducted a poll of 1,200 likely voters and tossed in a question about who they were likely to support for president. The poll concluded July 28, the same day the Democratic National Convention ended.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee, secured 58 percent of the votes, while Republican nominee Donald Trump secured 21 percent. Fifteen percent voted neither or other, and 6 percent voted no opinion. Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they supported Clinton, a paltry 5 percent for Trump, 9 percent for neither or other and 4 percent for no opinion.

Trump failed to secure 46 percent of his own party members in the Silicon Valley poll, with 18 percent selecting Clinton, 22 percent selecting neither or other and 6 percent selecting no opinion.

Silicon Valley’s independents are also on Clinton’s side, according to the poll, which had a reported a margin of error of 2.8 percent. Fifty-two percent said they were going with Clinton to 21 percent for Trump; 17 percent polled for neither or other and 10 percent had no opinion.

Opposition to Trump and his extremist policies have been well documented in Silicon Valley. On June 2, a Trump rally at the San Jose Convention Center turned violent as protesters clashed with Trump supporters.

David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett Packard, created the SVLG, which counts many of the region’s top employers and tech companies amongst its members. The organization, led by CEO Carl Guardino, works with government officials on policy issues such as immigration reform, transportation, economic initiatives and public health.

SVLG’s 2015 policy priorities focused on clean energy, which aligns with some of Clinton’s top platforms. Clinton has promised on her website to defend, implement and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards. Meanwhile, Trump has vowed to revitalize mines and drilling on federal lands.

The day after the poll concluded, SVLG applauded Clinton’s Initiative on Technology & Innovation, which focuses on “diversifying the STEM pipeline, increasing fundamental research funding, improving national digital infrastructure and strengthening cyber security.”

Correction: A previous version of this story stated that the poll targeted Silicon Valley leadership Group members, instead of likely voters. San Jose Inside regrets the error.


    • Mark, I think you are generalizing. I worked in the Valley for many years – worked very hard and was paid very well. There are still great opportunities for anyone who is willing to get the education. High Tech companies find if difficult to meet their employment needs without recruiting worldwide. To your second point – not all of the money is sent home. My international colleagues were highly invested in the local cities, schools, and amenities. We all need to encourage our kids to take more math and science. The global world has changed.

      • You are very uniformed and out of the loop. Read Michelle Malkin’s book, “Sold Out.’ I have talked to many of the Silcon Valley folks and they admit the hiprocracy of the Indian invasion and the visa problem.

    • Yearly cap for H1b visas is 65,000 which can be valid only up to 6 years max. There are approx. 318.9 million people in the USA and 1.252 billion people in India. The main problem is obviously not H1b program, however, it’s the fact that the US does not produce enough college graduates with engineering degrees.

    • Yearly cap for H1b visas is 65,000 and the visas expire after 6 years max (the person has to leave the country). In comparison, the population of the US is approx. 320 million and of India 1.25 billion. Albeit abused by large Indian subcontracting companies, the H1b program is not really a problem. The main issue is that US educational system does not produce enough college graduates with engineering degrees. There is chronic shortage of people with expertise is engineering fields.

      • It is a problem as is age discrimination. I had over 20 years IT experience and could not get hired after I got laid off in my fifties. I know quite a few former co-workers in the same boat. There are (or were) plenty of experienced people (Americans) who could have filled those jobs, but expected to be paid for their years of experience. Nowadays, American youth aren’t majoring in CS because they know they won’t be hired unless they’re a H1B.

    • I work around the tech industry people here in Seattle. Tech talent is NOT cheap labor. Shopping for good tech and scientific talent by a company such as amazon, Google, FB, or Microsoft is NOT the same thing as outsourcing a call center to India (which, admittedly, a lot of the same companies also do). You have the two totally confused. And the H1B people spend plenty of their income here in America, not a small chunk of it on housing in the areas they have to live in to be close to their jobs. They also have to eat here – they can’t buy their food from India and eat it here, you know. They do send some money home, but that’s only after they meet their necessary expenditures here, and many of them also make investments here in the USA as well.

    • Mark,
      your comment borders on a lie. Do you know, from Times of India article, how much of that remittance is by countries meaning Indians living in different parts of the world making some remittances. Obviously you don’t and you don’t care because it is easier to spit an opinion than spending some time understand it.
      Large percentage of remittance to India is from compatriots living in Arabian countries not US. Article doesn’t cover that. If you need more info see here http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/20/remittance-map/.
      Furthermore, you have no idea what percentage of money earned by Indians here in Silicon Valley is sent to India. Since many of these are in high income brackets, quite a bit of income (>30%?) is paid back to Uncle Sam and others (state, Social security, etc.). Then one has to plough back more money for high rents/ mortgage, kids education, other living expenses, etc. On top of it add 401k or other investments made here! So your comment doesn’t hold water and it is a joke and moronic when you make a statement like “All of these people are not spending their money here”. Go educate yourself on the topic.

    • Of course we are voting this way, because Silicon Valley culture works and is prosperous, and of course the parts of the U.S. that have come to oppose the SV approach have been stagnating, and are now committing cultural hari kari via the TTT. 95% of the parents in my daughter’s SV elementary school are ethnically Asian U.S. citizens/permanent residents/H1B workers, and they are spending pretty much all their 6 figure salaries on rent or mortgages, and almost all of the landlords and sellers I have known in SV are white, mostly middle or working-class longtime residents. Not only that, astounding amounts of foreign investment in Bay Area real estate and tech startups are well documented in the press. These workers are the world’s smartest, and they are coming here for the experience of innovation and entrepreneurship they get in SV, because I can promise you that with the rent they are paying to the landed class, they are sending $0 home! My wife (Phd, H1b after a top U.S university) manages the development of the machine that is used to treat most cancers, including those occurring in white zenophobic Republicans, and in her grad school lab, which admitted based on merit, only 20% of the students were American born. They schools in many parts of SV are astounding, the students work really hard, and a lot of this has to do with the values of people who were born in countries with severe poverty, but who study like crazy all their lives to work in fields that are changing our lives for the better. I knew a top chip designer at Sun who never say a computer until he got to the U.S., but did all his engineering training in India on paper. I am white and have multiple ancestors who fought in the Revolution, but I am sorry, the anti-intellectualism, anti-STEM, and zenophobic bias I see in most of white America will turn out to be its own punishment, and I am glad there is a tall mountain range between California and the rest of the U.S.

    • Silicon Valley is voting this way because it is full of EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT people who recognize that Donald Trump is a dangerous, unstable candidate due to his severe narcissistic personality disorder…

      • Highly educated in computer code does not make one highly educated in life. Wake up and realize that Silicone Valley is filled with grossly overpaid children that will have a tantrum if they don’t get their way. They surely have you fooled.

    • You have no idea what you’re talking about. H1b visas cost these companies money and this labor is NOT cheap at all. Read a book before spouting your uneducated opinion.

    • Research into Trumps political base has shown that
      Trump’s support skewed
      4.with no college education

      That pretty much disqualifies most of those working in Silicon valley.

      It’s probably also why, regardless of how baseless his claims are….his supporters still love him.

      • You are so wrong. Profile of non-trump supporters
        1. illegal or associated with an illegal
        2. poor
        3. no college
        4. minimum wage
        5. on assistance
        6. h1b or hires h1b workers, sums up a good percentage of silicon valley workers.
        It’s funny how any american can like clinton after all she has done. The lies, corruption, and trail of death. The wealth accumulated disguised as the clinton foundation, unbelievable…

          • Education, intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are all independent variables.

            Unintelligent people can be educated.

            Educated people can acquire a great store of misinformation and useless knowledge.

            And uneducated people of average intelligence, with limited knowledge are capable of making wise decisions, particularly about their own lives.

          • The mental gymnastics you go through is hilarious. No, those are not all independent variables. Many are correlated and dependent on each other.

            If unintelligent people can be educated, think how many unintelligent people are not educated. If educated people can acquire a store of misinformation, then think about how much useless information uneducated people can get.

            Lack of education and lack of intelligence means ignorance and that equals poor decision making.

            The anti-intellectualism in this country is astounding. No wonder the US has dropped so low education-wise this past few decades. Grow up and read a book.

  1. > SVLG’s 2015 policy priorities focused on blah blah blah, which aligns with some of Clinton’s top platforms.

    SVLG is simply a de facto local chapter of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.

    California Democrats are very smug because the Field Poll has told them that Hillary is ahead of Trump by 30 points.

    PREDICTION: By mid-September, Hillary’s lead over Trump will be 15 percent..

    Trump will make some campaign appearances in California and cut Hillary’s lead to single digits.

    Dems will panic, Bill and Hillary will make campaign appearances in California, and Hillary will pull out a 10-14 percent win over Trump.

    Book it.

  2. Overpaid CEO’s are wanting cheap labor … so, they’re going to side with Wall “Fraud” Street and back the party mostly likely to cater (or be oblivious to) their B.S. No surprise here.


  4. HiLIAR is a puppy of wall street and big corporations. do not ask what man/woman’s room can do to you, ask what you can do to Hiliary’s room

    • Crooked Trumpliar is the greatest liar of them all.

      He said Global Climate Change was a Chinese hoax. Can you imagine a bigger more evil and more harmful lie?

      • global climate change is nothing new, it’s been changing since the beginning of time. But libtards don’t understand reality.

      • Sounds like you are giving up on your guy’s chances, SJO. Either that or Trump won’t be presiding over a democracy. Obviously you don’t think of yourself and your friends as stupid or easily manipulated.

        • > Sounds like you are giving up on your guy’s chances, SJO.

          Trump does not need California’s electoral votes to win the presidency.

          > Either that or Trump won’t be presiding over a democracy.

          Hopefully, President Trump will be presiding over a constitutional republic. (The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution.)

          > Obviously you don’t think of yourself and your friends as stupid or easily manipulated.

          It would be immodest of me to make this claim for myself, But secretly, I agree.

  5. As a means of investigating the virtue of one candidate over another, polling labor bosses, military commanders, business leaders, bureaucrats, or political pundits is an exercise in futility, as all belong to professions whose members have proven themselves willing to sell out the public’s interests in service to their own. Betraying the public has become so acceptable a political practice that not even the leadership of one’s own political party can be trusted as an information source or guardian of its members voting rights.

    In the case of the SVLG, a quick comparison of how its members have prospered since its inception versus how this county has fared reveals a prosperity of the trickle-down variety – the trickle carrying with it a distinct odor of sewage.

  6. Most immigrnats and refugee knowingly they came to the countrly much behind their native counterparts, so they worked hard to catch up. within five to 10 years they are pretty much settled; earned varios college degrees, held decend paying jobs, owned houses & businesses among others. Thanks to those created the opportunities before them. With that, it’s true that handful of refugees and/or immigrants ran into problem with the laws. Troubled persons should be send to an isolated island somewhere far from society.

  7. Follow the money. The only “real issue” for Valley voters is which candidate supports the most crooked accounting standards and lowest rate of prosecutions for hucksterism/fraud. The rest is a high-brow version of the playground game: “my opponent is a poopy-head”

  8. I would like to bring to your notice some aspects of the h1b abuse which are often overlooked. While the focus on the H1b visa abuse has correctly been placed on the numerous Indian IT and USA companies like TATA, Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, cognizant, IBM..Etc. what is often overlooked is the damage caused by the small body shops which file H1b visas every year. These smaller sham companies are far worse than the large outsourcing companies. These dummy companies are usually set up by the people who themselves are already here in USA on h1b visa or by people who have got green card after coming here on h1b visa. They act like a cartel and this is their modus operandi.

    1. Worker pays $6000 for company to apply for his/her H1B
    2. If workers VISA is rejected, company will refund the money barring a small fee of about 1000$
    3. If the VISA is approved, the worker goes to the US and gives the cartel a percentage of his/her earnings

    These body shops are registered as Limited Liability Company (LLC) in different states in USA. it is a very simple process to register a Limited Liability Company(LLC) in USA, this LLC works as the body shop for supplying IT consultants. These LLC owners then run ads in India inviting people to apply for H1b visa. The people responding to the ads are asked to pay for the h1b visa processing fee which is approximately US$6K. Collecting money from h1b applicants is against the law but the money is exchanged in India and the h1b applicant after coming to USA never complains because he/she also broke the law by paying for the h1b visa application when the company should have paid for it. Before applying for h1b visa the companies are supposed to be undertaking good faith measures to hire American workers but this never happens because the whole point of these small body shops is to undercut the wages of the American workers by bringing in foreigners who will work for a low price. Another blatant abuse of the h1b visa is the non-payment of the wages. The h1b workers are paid salaries that are 40% less than what is paid to the American workers, not only is this salary already low in addition this salary is paid only if the h1b worker has a job, if he is out of a job (referred to as being on bench in IT consulting) he is not paid his salary. This is another violation of the law as the h1b worker has to be paid the salary certified in the h1b visa application irrespective of whether he is on bench or not. Again the h1b worker does not complain because as per law he is supposed to leave USA immediately when he is out of job, to avoid leaving USA the h1b worker breaks the law by working with the small body shop LLC to not report the job loss to USCIS. Both the body shop and the h1 worker wins because the body shop does not have to pay salary and the h1b worker does not have to leave USA. When the h1b worker gets a job that is usually a temporary contracting job, The small body shop gets 20% of the billing. As mentioned above both the h1b worker and the body shop are willfully breaking the law from the very beginning of the application process and because it is a mutually assured self destruction by complaining neither the h1b worker nor the small body shop complain about this. While I applaud the various steps taken by senator dick Durbin and chuck Grassley like introducing new tax for fraud detection etc these taxes are only applied on the companies with more than 50 employees. These small body shops are less than 50 employees because they are sham companies whose only business is filing h1b visas. They have zero risk and unlimited profits because they never pay for the h1b application as the h1b worker himself is paying for it, they get to keep 20% percentage of the h1b worker earning and don’t have to pay a salary when the h1b worker does not have a job. On an average the body shop makes 10k to 15k per each h1b visa they hold and on an average these small body shops hold 35 to 45 h1 b visas each. Since the scrutiny begins to increase when the employee strength goes above 50, they start another LLC company to file h1b visa when the number of h1b visa in the original body shop reaches near 50. These body shop companies work without any hassles as no one is investigating them, the press, media, law makers are also concentrating on the big outsourcing companies while ignoring these companies. There are thousands of such small companies holding about 30 to 50 h1b visas. This number is increasing each year as new companies are set up every year.

    Another illegal activity which is a lucrative stream of money for these body shops is the F1 Visa students. F1 visa is issued to students who study in US universities. Initially after graduation the f1 students got an employment authorization document (EAD) which was valid for 12 months and gave them authorization to work in USA legally for the period of that EAD. over the last couple of years the EAD period has been increased from 12 months to 36 months. The EAD is initially issued for 12 months with a renewal for the remaining 24 months by showing proof of employment. Again it is these LLC body shops which give a fake letter saying they have a job when in fact in most cases they don’t have a job. irrespective of whether the f1 student has a contract job or not the body shop always gives a letter saying the student has a job, this is lying and illegal because the student is paid only if he is on a project and not if he is on bench. The body shops create fake resumes saying the students have 7 years’ experience when in fact these students are not even older than 23 or 24 years and have been is USA for less than 2 to 4 years. The students dont even have the expereience or knowledge to attend interviews, they have proxies who take the interview on their behalf!!!! somes companies have found out about this and began insisting on video conference using skype but even that is not stopping the fraud. the “student” just sits infront of the camera lip sysncing while the proxy off camera answers the questions. This has become a criminal racket

    Below are examples of such companies.

    You can go to
    http://www.myvisajobs.com/H1B-Visa/SearchLCA.aspx it will allow you to search for employers who filed for h1b. They are earning an average of half million an year by taking 20% of the h1b worker salary. Their investment is zero, risk is zero and profit is unlimited!!!. there are thousands of such companies holding 30 to 50 h1b visas each, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of h1b. Some of these companies don’t even have a website and some companies have a website which has complete misinformation. They claim they have some process, product Etc. when in fact most have a home address or a dummy office which dosn’t even have enough space to sit more than 5 tor 6 people when in fact the number of h1b visas they hold are 30 to 50.Some such body shops which have been in existence for multiple years have grown into holding 300 to 500 h1b visas each, these companies are not on the radar of the lawmakers or the media.

    I am not anti-India or a racist. I myself am an American citizen of Indian origin. I am not trying to bash Indians, 90% of the body shops and the so called IT consultants are from India and that is the reason I gave specific example of India. Not everyone coming from India is a law breaker and as a responsible citizen I am voicing my opposition to this blatant misuse and illegal actions of both the body shops and the people who work in these body shops who are coming here on h1b visa.

    • Bravo, well said. Michelle Malkin has a book out called ‘Sold Out’ that talks specifically about this problem. It was very enlightening.

  9. I worked in a company that was H1b. This was just a few years ago. I’m not exactly sure if this is an issue of money. I don’t think it’s an issue of a talent shortage either.

    The owners managed to get their relatives all here on H1B, and many of them were fairly talent-less. It’s very easy to Cherry pick who you want to work for you if you hire them through firms like INfosys or Katya Consulting. The family member that brought them over was considered a Brahmin(Priest), and his relatives were all Khsatriyas(Warriors). Person friends were in the Vaishyas(Merchant).

    Most of the Indian tech’s we had were Shudras, taking the blame for when a Vaishyas or Khsatriyas screwed up. These guys would literally throw themselves in front of a bus to save those on the upper castes.

    Anybody non-Indian was usually considered an “Untouchable”. Very few, if any non-Indians in the company made it to the Shudras level.

    Explaining how Caste works in a H1B company is just a precursor to some of the other stuff I’m about to say.

    This isn’t an issue with tech talent. We have plenty of smart engineers here in the bay area and the world. The issue is with work ethic, or more specifically, the lack of ethics from the “Brahmins” of the world.

    They expect people to work 12 hour days everyday. They expect people to never call in sick, and to always say “Yes” When they buy that new BMW while wearing their Ambercombie and Fitch Jacket, they want to be kissed up to.

    They have a really hard time understanding the independent, yet collaborative nature of the US worker. The word “No” Or the phrase, “I can’t do that” is an insult to them.

    The real truth of the matter is, India is a dirty, corrupted, and sometimes violent country. If you think our Trump Rally violence is shocking, go read about the history of the Sikh’s sometime. When it comes to religion, the knives come out. The Brahmins are bringing money to the US because they can’t stand to live in their own country anymore.

    But because they can’t deal with American workers attitudes, they’re importing their own people.

    • Robert,

      Not sure I understand how this (if true) relates to Clinton vs. Trump. Are you saying Trump would end immigration from India? Tell me more.

      • Just relates to the political conspiracy in the above comments that H1B visa’s are sought after for purely financial reasons. Most of the bay area firms that are Indian, are Indian for a reason. It has little, if anything to do with a financial motivation.

        Trump getting elected will have zero influence on Indians hiring their own due to cultural differences of US workers. H1B is an American construct. Likely they would either telecommute workers (What’s Trump going to do about that?) or they would find a country with societal benefits close to what the USA has and set up shop there. Said magical country would need good schools, an open immigration policy, good internet connection, clean water, paved roads, low taxes and plenty of loopholes. Cheap land. Oh, and Pacific timezone. Can’t fathom where that could be though.

        Most Latin American countries are corrupt, dirty, and xenophobic. Catholicism is the dominant religion, and anyone non-Catholic in these countries is a pariah. So likely we would not see Indians welcomed in these countries.

        Canada might be a good candidate, except for the frigid cold. Toronto is becoming a tech hub itself, and people are fairly tolerant of other religions and cultures.

        • So Trump getting elected would not change the H1B culture of California. Meaning those tied to the H1B culture have no reason to pick Clinton over Trump? That does not seem to be what the other commenters are suggesting. They seem to be saying Clinton is winning here because of the H1B crowd. What am I missing?

          • > What am I missing?

            My first sentence apparently. I said.

            >Just relates to the political conspiracy in the above comments that H1B visa’s are sought after for purely financial reasons.

            I’m just making a comment in regards to other commenters. Also, it will have no effect on the “Culture” other than cause it to move somewhere else. You can’t remove 8000 years of being told “You will amount to nothing in life because you were from this region, or born from this family” from the social consciousness of a people.

            >H1B culture of California.

            Anyways, it’s not a culture. It’s more of a “Cultural exemption/immunity” like affirmative action. Or when someone says, “DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!” Caste is culture, and the driving reason why H1B exists. Indian CEO’s are like “Brahmin/Priests”. Not all of them believe the caste system is life. There’s a lot that were raised in London, or grew up here, but there are the hardcore ones that believe Caste is a way of life. I know, I’ve worked for them.

          • H1b’s are not supposed to be voting, but there employers are all super big contributors to the DNC and Clinton crime family foundation.

            It’s just amazing what kind of return in government contracts you can get with a $250 Clinton or Obama speech. For a couple million you get billion dollar properties and or half the uranium mines in the free world.

            Wonder what it would cost for a contract to Mars?

  10. > will have no effect on the “Culture” other than cause it to move somewhere else

    Sorry Robert, you’ve lost me. Still not sure why Trump being elected would cause the H1B folks to “move somewhere else,” as you say. Unless you are saying Trump would stop this particular immigration practice. Which you are not saying — given that you also say “Trump getting elected will have zero influence” on it.

    My point being — I don’t think you’ve really thought it out. You appear not to like the H1B folks. And you appear to like Trump. Those two things, put together, make a lot of sense. None of the rest of it really does.

    • >You appear not to like the H1B folks. And you appear to like Trump.

      Ahh so your true agenda finally shows! I knew it! You just want to peg me. Give my prostate a little tickle don’t you? OK Here’s a hint, you don’t understand most of what I’m saying because you lack comprehension.

      >You appear not to like the H1B folks.

      Again, you show your lack of comprehension. H1B isn’t a person, it isn’t a culture. It’s a type of work visa that is ripe with abuse. Riddled and riddled with abuse. It’s sole purpose is to bring a worker with a certain cultural work ethic here. They get paid less, they get abused, they get mistreated, they get overworked, they get threatened with deportation because if you lose your H1B job you have 30 days to find a new job or leave.

      If we *REALLY* needed them, I would prefer they come on a visa that gives them more recourse in the face of abuse, or full citizenship.

      >And you appear to like Trump.

      I’ll be voting for anyone but Trump or Clinton. I’ll be writing in Bernie if need be. Asking me which of the top two candidates I prefer is like asking me which steaming pile of crap is better.

      • Well then my apologies, I misunderstood. Though I can’t say I had an agenda besides lively debate. If that’s what you mean by “tickling your prostate” (something I would prefer to avoid in the literal sense), then yes – I plead guilty.

        That said, H1B is a proxy word for East Indian immigrants in Silicon Valley. You know that, because that’s how you used it. Yes I do understand that in the literal sense, it is a work visa.

        Also, I remain baffled by aspects of your description of the caste system (such as that relatives of Brahmins are Kshatriyas — usually an impossibility since caste is passed down by lineage). It seemed like a stereotype of an immigrant population fashioned by someone outside that population and by and large clueless about its inner workings. That, coupled with your apparent minimization of violence at “our Trump rallies,” when compared with the “dirty, corrupted and sometimes violent” country that is India — suggested to me that perhaps you had some animus toward that immigrant population and a preference for “our Trump rallies” instead.

        Obviously I was wrong. Apologies again.

        • It’s not a proxy word. You cannot redefine words for your own nefarious purposes. And yes, Trump rally violence is a schoolyard fight compared to the violence Irinda Ghandi caused with the Sikh’s in 1984. It is minimal in comparison. 2800 people died. Nobody has died at a Trump rally yet. Speaking of “Schoolyard fight” your sophomoric “Debating” makes you seem keen to fight me. 3:30 behind the bleachers by the football field if that’s ok with you. No weapons.

          • I won’t redefine words if you don’t redefine them first. Nor make cultural comparisons from decades ago if you don’t do that first.

            And sure, I’d love to fight you if you prefer that over my previously offered apology.

          • And BTW yes, it IS a proxy word. As Empty Gun says above, “H1b’s are not supposed to be voting.” He means the people, not the visas themselves. You should take that up with him.

  11. If I have this right, Silicon Valley’s tech moguls want for America a president whom they themselves would not consider employing based on her reckless and incompetent treatment of the confidential information entrusted to her by her previous employer. Is this support evidence that these businesspeople hold a lower standard for national security than they do the security of trade secrets, or is it because, given Ms. Clinton’s rigid compliance to the code of omertá in matters connected with her family’s gangster activities, they believe she’ll be able to step up her game?

    Having observed FBI directors many times level bold and fearless charges at organized crime’s most powerful figures, I’ll admit to being a bit unnerved to see Director Comey so obviously intimidated that he was afraid to even utter the word “true” during a hearing on the email scandal, despite it being the most direct and appropriate response to the questions asked. The man behaved as would a hostile witness – something you really don’t want to see in a public servant whose personal conduct is not on trial. Comey, an allegedly capable leader of an extremely powerful agency, made himself look weak and evasive in service to a woman who holds no official position, but is nonetheless obviously wielding great power of some kind. What kind might that be? Certainly not anything honorable.

    See for yourself.


  12. Is anyone taking bets today on what awful thing(s) Donald Trump will say or do today?

    Keep in mind that in the past 2 months alone, he’s made a series of outright racist statements regarding the judge in his fraud case, he’s congratulated himself immediately after 50 people were murdered in a gay nightclub, he repeatedly implied that President Obama was a secret Muslim, he’s ramped up his hateful Islamophobic rhetoric (including repeated false claims about refugees and American citizens who served our Country in the armed forces and who are Muslim), and he revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post.

    AND what Trump said yesterday (even though none of us really knows what he meant when he said) that Second Amendment advocates should stop Hillary.

    Obviously, if you know me you would know i have my disagreements with the GOP platform when it comes to the rights of women, to LGBTQ individuals, to immigration, to the environment, to taxation, and okay to be real a very good deal more.

    But beyond those disagreements, i realized as i read from the likely group of people here on San Jose Inside who support Mr. Trump…that they all just see the world…and this country…in such a fundamentally different way than i do.

    Their man, Trump insists, and they really seem to believe, that we are desperately unsafe, that crime and violence are all around us, that our government is doing a very poor job of protecting us, and that even the police are powerless to stop the criminals who target us and them. He insists, and they believe, that vast hordes of Mexican murderers and Muslim terrorists are streaming or preparing to stream across our open borders and kill our loved ones. He insists, and they believe, that we have major economic problems and that we spend too much money on our international allies. He insists, and they believe, that America is being or has been stolen from the white Christians who made it great and that he is the only person capable of restoring America to its former glory.

    This isn’t my America. Thank God that this isn’t what i see when i look around.

    • > Obviously, if you know me you would know i have my disagreements with the GOP platform …


      You are the only person I know of who knows or cares what’s in the GOP platform.

      In less than 100 days, Hillary Clinton will be elected President of California.

      Why are you fretting about the GOP platform? You sound worried.

    • Ross,

      Take an aspirin and lie down until it passes. By admitting that you don’t know what someone’s comment even means, you’re hardly capable of drawing any rational conclusions.

      For the other folks, here’s one voter’s view:

      We were always taught in Civics (that shows my age, eh?) that people vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’.

      That is true; the only perfect candidate would be each individual voter’s: you are the only perfect candidate, from your perspective. Every other candidate is different than you. Some candidates are close to your ideals, some are farther away. So we vote for the one closest to our views, and more importantly, we reject the candidate who is the farthest away. That’s how our system works.

      This election is a classic case of ‘the lesser of two evils’. Aside from those who will vote for someone who can’t get elected, we really have only one choice: H. Clinton or D. Trump.

      So this election is about which candidate we will vote against. Rather than voting for either one of the two possible winners, we will be voting against the one we think would be worse for us, for our families, and for our country.

      But the media has done its usual job of ‘reporting’, by avoiding basic policy discussions. Instead, ‘reporters’ like to quote the man on the street, and play the usual media sound bites that amount to ad hominem character assassination: name-calling, innuendo, baseless assertions, and all the other wild-eyed pablum that is intended to sway the mouth-breathers — to try and get them head-nodding along with the nightly news anchor babe. That way the media avoids involving the public in substantive discussions about policies that will directly affect Americans.

      “She’s a liar!” “He’s dangerous!”, etc. Those scare phrases are intended to deflect us from discussing real issues. Thus, the basic direction the country will take with either candidate’s election is avoided.

      But it doesn’t take much to ignore all the name-calling and emo-attacks. For those who can disregard the hyperbole, it’s not too hard to see which candidate will take the country in a particular direction.

      Lots of folks like the direction President Obama has taken our country. They do not want anyone who will return the country to its original values. So they know who to vote against.

      And lots of folks dislike the direction that Obama has taken the country. They want 8 more years of ‘Obama 2.0’. So they also know who to vote against.

      The media avoids discussing whether the basic changes in national policy over the past eight years are something we should continue, or whether on balance they hurt, rather than help the country.

      Unfortunately, the media does not permit any serious discussion of the basic issues. A typical example is right here, with this deflection over H1B visas, which is really only a peripheral discussion of the wider and much more serious issue of essentially dissolving our national borders.

      As we see, this parochial discussion has devolved into name-calling, innuendo, and the usual ‘us versus them’ arguments. But people should be discussing something much more basic: should we enforce border control, as we always have? Or should we continue the recent sea change in federal policy that now says anyone who manages to set foot here will be protected and cared for? Because that is the basic issue. Everything else flows from that decision; H1B visas, anchor babies, taxpayer support and subsidy of essentially all foreign citizens who get here, etc. For example, if an H1B visa holder decides to permanently remain in a Sanctuary City after his visa expires, what determines the outcome? Past immigration law? Or the recent change in government policy regarding the enforcement of immigration laws?

      We could spend hours parsing every peripheral change in the government’s changed attitude. Lots of people like the changes. Lots of people are unhappy about them, too. But for sure, the media deflects the public from any serious discussion about effects and consequences of open borders. Instead, emotion rules: name-calling, petty tribalism, and constant attempts to demonize the opponent’s candidate.

      No candidate is perfect. They have their faults, just like every past candidate. But this election more than most is centered on one question: which candidate would be worse for our country?

      • Certainly we have a lot of work to do as a country; certainly there are many, many, many things we need to fix, (yes including our politics) AND we all know for certain that there are dangerous people out there. But in general things are pretty good, and certainly they are moving in a more positive direction…when we honestly compare things with the way they were in our not-so-distant past. Thankfully, there is actually less violent crime today than in the past; there are fewer police officers being killed in the line of duty; and thank God that we are mostly shielded from terrorism, at least in part due to the governmental processes already in place to protect us.

        So, as i read over these posts and see the thousands of people on their feet, voicing their approval for Trump as he screams *We don’t want them in our country* i realized it might be impossible for me to understand this fear and anger.

        In fact, i might be in a position where all i could ever feel was fear and revulsion for this sort of thinking.

    • Ross,
      50 people were murdered in a gay nightclub by a Muslim terrorist and yesterday in Florida Hillary host a rally were the father of that killer, a devout Muslim and supporter of the TALIBAN and Hillary is sitting behind her by invitation.

      Do you know what kind of racist the Taliban are?

      This killer was a Hillary supporter, not a Trump supporter.
      He was on a watch list and the FBI let him buy guns, what the hell good is a background check if Obama’s government
      lets this kind of person go? Are they sympathetic to the cause or is this just another round of Fast and Furious?
      This is the kind of thugocracy that follows Hillary around and beating up Trump supporters and killing anyone they don’t like.

      What vial, intolerant, bigoted, very smart little people you are.

  13. What will Donald Trump say next? It’s a question that leaves his team anxious and the news media salivating.

    Trump’s problem is that when he’s enjoying himself he can’t suppress his inner ham, and he has such a good time communicating to his supporters that he can’t help but relax and let loose his personality. And it is those loose moments, when he’s sizing up the lampshade for fit, that signal his handlers to hold tight and news reporters to shake themselves out of their stupor.

    Hillary has no such problem, as she, like all psychopaths, has no affinity for other humans, no real personality, and no sense of joy. Hillary doesn’t relax in public, she conceals. She is a packaged product; her candidacy is being pitched to America the way Kellogg’s peddles corn flakes: a dull promise pasted on an oversized cardboard box containing a half-filled bag of the familiar, same-old, same-old.

    Trump has proved himself reckless with his words – not exactly a sin for a man who’s never held office and is fighting an uphill battle against two corrupt political parties, only one of which is he even marginally considered a member. He is, more than any candidate I can recall, on his own; a lone wolf competing against a vicious pack.

    Hillary has also proved herself reckless with words, but her recklessness involves her disconnect with the truth. She is a serial liar, one who has disgraced herself with her false claim of valor (“We landed under fire”) and offered bald-faced lies about virtually every facet of her illegal email practices. She showed herself evasive about the investigation into Benghazi and contemptuous of any facts or laws that get in her way. Her track record of fleecing the public, going all the way back to Arkansas, plays like an episode of American Greed (provided you ignore all the dead bodies).

    Democrats hope that we will unfairly hold Donald Trump to the standard of a veteran politician when on the podium, but ask that we hold Hillary to the minimum standard of a jail trustee when it comes to her personal integrity.

    Yes, Trump is flawed, but he’s human and seems to care about America. I don’t see him falsely claiming valor, circumventing security measures, disrespecting law enforcement, or playing up to the thug community. I figure that he’s going to approach the job they way he approached his business affairs and make good use of professionals.

    Trump is rich; rich enough that his pursuit of the presidency is not motivated by the desire to trade America’s best interests for the big bucks offered by special interests. He made a fortune in the dog-eat-dog private sector, where ambitious people like him go to make fortunes. Hillary accumulated a fortune while in public service, where ambitious people go to serve their fellow man, and honest fortunes are well out of reach. But somehow this woman found something in public service for which others paid her tens of millions of dollars. That something is America’s best interests: yours, mine, and our children’s.

    Yes, the woman may have learned to watch her words, but her behavior is a disgrace. She has dishonored the public’s trust.

    • Then vote for Sanders. It’s your vote. But of all the alternatives that cannot win, why would you pick the communist?

      Every communist country has been a total, abject failure. You want the U.S. to be next?

      Just wondering why…

      • Smokey- I don’t think I’ve ever seen an election year that has held such rotten choices for President. Neither candidate, in my opinion, is “good for America.” One is a liar and one is just plain nuts. I also question the way this election has been run. Too many questions about vote tampering, and fraud have been raised.

        I’m going to vote my conscious even though I know Sanders won’t win. I won’t vote based on fear, nor will I “follow the party.” I think Sanders got a rotten deal, and I’m not so sure he lost to Clinton. I think the election was rigged.

        In answer to your question of WHY Sanders, I guess I feel the need to send a message to the old guard that I have had enough of the same old BS. I’m sick and tired of voting for the lessor of two evils. I absolutely want a better America, but I do NOT believe that Clinton or Trump will lead us to where we need to be.

        • Kathleen,
          I can think of a few bad years 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 ,2008, 2012. Go ahead vote for Sanders. LOL

  14. A great many of Senator Bernie Sanders don’t feel like things are going well, and in many ways like Trump’s supporters also don’t feel like America is great, don’t feel like we’re on the right track.

    Now moving forward i believe the real question is how to talk to these people and, rather than telling them they’re just wrong, find ways to highlight for example Mr. Trump’s utter lack of a plan to help them and contrast it with Clinton’s decades of experience with helping people. That’s what many good Progressive Democrats like Bernie now have been trying to do, but a whole lot of these people aren’t watching or really doing their home work.

    You can find all the details of both Hillary’s and Trump’s plans on their website and i strongly encourage everyone that spends the time blogging here on SJI to look them both over.

    The difference between the amount of time and care that Hillary and Trump campaigns put into their Issues websites is stark and it highlights the way they’re approaching the seriousness of the feelings of those Americans who are, to use Trump’s campaign tweet, “living in poverty” and “despair.”

    It’s easy enough to do the same analysis regarding their proposals for dealing with ISIS and with immigration. And so we should. And then we should share our findings with everyone who is even considering a vote for Trump in November, in no small part because the Trump campaign is actively discouraging his supporters from even listening to Hillary Clinton or other good Democrats and Republican Conservatives who are speak against Trumps extreme views and hate filled politics. I was raised to understand that the hallmark of a campaign with bad ideas or no ideas at all is to actively discourage voters from getting information.

    So talk to people. But listen to what they’re telling you and don’t dismiss their feelings; i don’t believe they’re all idiots (of course not) and in fact they’re not always wrong about how they feel. Instead, just try and show them the ways in which the Hillarys campaign is responding to how they feel, providing actual ideas that can work to reduce “poverty, violence and despair” rather than empty promises that, if enacted, will actually make them and everyone else worse off.

    • > contrast it with Clinton’s decades of experience with helping people.


      Some the the people Hillary helped were Wall Street bankers and Middle Eastern potentates who made big donations to the Clinton Foundation.

      If Trump releases his tax returns, is Hillary going to release her health records and the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street?

      And, by the way, why does transparent, ethical behavior on the part of Hillary depend on what Trump does or doesn’t do?

      • How long was it between her press conferences? The more she keeps her mouth shut the higher her poll numbers go.

      • I find it amazing someone who spent their life in public service is painted as the corrupt, greedy candidate when there is literally a spoiled, lifelong billionaire NYC real estate developer who openly brags about bribing politicians and getting away with anything he wants.

        You all realize there is no tenuous, hidden connection to Wall Street and Trump you have to prove right? He openly admits to it and his entire team of advisors are billionaire hedge fund managers and investment bankers, not to mention lobbyists and “establishment” politicians.

        Trump not only refuses to release his tax returns (something that Hillary has done) he has also failed to release his transcripts of speeches (of which his charges 1 million to give) and health records. Why don’t you apply these standards to each side before complaining one side is corrupt.

  15. Ross,
    Sanders and Trump are both equal and opposite reactions to the undertow of what the coming tidal wave of people feel is a totally corrupt unresponsive government of elitist Democrats and Republican establishment.
    On one hand we have Hillary, who with the help of the cronys in the DMC rigged the primaries to beat out the communist New Yorker from Vermont. Can’t understand why they are so pissed off, that’s SOP for the DNC.

    Trump is the product of stupid RNC infighting running 14 identical establishment candidates trying to beat the 2 non establishment candidates. this was train wreck from the start. While republicans couldn’t rig the primary they certainly have tried to steal the convention.

    Hand picked super delegates from the DNC and locking the Burney people out of the convention have dumped the worst possible money grubbing pay to play politician in the history of this country into the unhappy laps of Democrat
    voters. Of course she cares about your feeling Ross and the more money you send her the more she will tell you she cares. With enough money Ross she have the government give you whatever you want.

    Trump on the other hand is totally a product of seriously fed up anger voters that have had it with go along do nothing establishment Republicans, and some tea party conservatives. RINO’s are voting for the losers this time.

    Let’s see lack of information, not on Trump, everything he has ever uttered in the last 30 years and a lot of things he didn’t say have been smeared all over the place.

    Hillary no information why yes most of 35000 emails, the Benghazi attack, the FBI files and Rose law firm records,
    Hillary seems to have a very distinct problem communicating her feeling as the files and tapes keep disappearing like Nixon’s 18 minute gap. The problem is now people are starting to disappear too , I mean again.

    If you want to find out more Hillary Dinesh D’souza’s very fine documentary on Hillary and the history of the very nice people at the DNC. Clinton Cash is also a good read for the Low Information Voter, also avalible in documentary form.
    So please read up and let your feeling be known, I find them entertaining.

  16. > The anti-intellectualism in this country is astounding.


    People don’t think much of your degree, do they.

    Basket weaving?

    Environmental “studies”? (Not environmental “science”, just environmental “studies”.)

    Ethnic and gender studies?

    • Close, economics and political science.

      Nice job trying to deflect from the argument though. I guess someone failed English 101. Or does your contempt for college degrees stem from the fact that you never passed high school? I would bet anyone with any degree, including “basket weaving,” understands more about the world than you do. This is why you should stay in school kids.

      • > Nice job trying to deflect from the argument though.

        Let’s see if you fall for this deflection:
        Paul Krugman has a degree in:
        A. Economics
        B. Ebonics
        C. Economical ebonics.

        Paul Krugman writes for:
        A. The New York Times
        B. The Old York Times
        C. The Going Out of Business York Times because nobody believes the crap in their stupid newspaper anymore..

        Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for what?
        A. Nineteenth century Marxist economics.
        B. Eighteenth century Mercantilism
        C. 10,000 BC Tribalist hunter/gatherer economics
        D. Kim Kardashian economics

      • > Close, economics and political science.
        . . . .
        > How many City employees are there?
        > The City has 5,945 positions (as of the 2015-2016 Adopted Budget).

        Just wondering:
        If San Jose has 5,945 jobs, how many of those jobs REQUIRE a degree in political science?
        And, if ANY job in San Jose REQUIRES a degree in political science, WHY?
        Is anyone with a political science degree even ALLOWED to work for the City of San Jose?

        Actually, who in the private of public sector would ever hire anyone with a degree in political science to perform actual paid productive work?

        Spending four, five, or six years to get a degree in political science sounds like a BAD career decision.

        Consider the alternatives:
        A. Get a two year community college degree in “The History of Rock and Roll”, AND
        B. Buy a Ford F150 pick up truck
        You’ll be way ahead.

  17. Duffman123 finds it “amazing” that Hillary is painted as a corrupt, greedy candidate. The source of his amazement is, remarkably, his understanding of Donald Trump’s track record in the private sector.

    Utilizing a false comparison, especially one as obvious as this, is not the mark of a bright or competently educated person. Trump’s track record, real or imagined, has no bearing whatsoever on Hillary’s stunning lack of character, nor does her “life in public service,” as she has used those years in public to create in the minds of a great many people, many of them Trump haters, a profound mistrust and unshakeable dislike. Has there ever been a public figure, first introduced to the people as a First Lady, who has generated such disapproval? She took the sympathy of the wronged woman and, in her own unique way, turned it into fear and loathing.

    Duffman123 condemns Trump for what he sees as his willingness to advance his personal interests by participating in the big money game in the dirty way it is played. Fair enough. But everything Trump ever put to risk in the game was his, where everything Hillary has put to risk belonged to the American people: our tax dollars, our national security, our national integrity, our rule of law. But give her credit for figuring it right, as was just made obvious by the special treatment she received from the FBI (and claims she did nothing wrong are contradicted by her own behavior – lying and destroying evidence). Hillary likes the rigged game, and her contribution to public service has always been based on the cattleman’s definition of service, and she’s serviced the public in every position she’s ever held.

    • Wow, you missed the mark completely. Maybe work on your reading comprehension before you say someone else isn’t bright. My comparison wasn’t Trump’s character vs. Hillary’s character, it’s the completely delusional standard you apply to each candidate. You say one is corrupt for not releasing speeches etc when the other candidate failed to do the same (and refuses to release his tax returns). You say Hillary is corrupt for taking donations from Wall St, when Trump not only does the exact same (and spent his life working with them), but most of his advisors are from there as well.

      But since you ignored that point entirely and decided to go on a tangent about Hillary’s record again, I’m guessing you already acknowledge his failures and just didn’t want to admit it. Don’t worry about it though, everyone has a hard time defending Trump.

      • “I find it amazing someone who spent their life in public service” — the who

        “is painted as the corrupt, greedy candidate” — the what

        “when there is literally a spoiled, lifelong billionaire NYC real estate developer who openly brags about bribing politicians and getting away with anything he wants.” — the why

        Here is the paragraph of yours to which I responded. The who, the what, and the why are plain as day. As I correctly comprehended the first time, it was a false comparison you used in an attempt to delegitimize the criticisms aimed at Hillary Clinton, not by disproving them (which would’ve required credible refutation), but by criticizing Donald Trump (which could be viewed as implying your inability to defend Hillary’s record).

        The primitive level of thinking you demonstrated in the quoted/dissected paragraph is neither uncommon nor a high crime — when committed by schoolboys or savages. But that you, a self-described holder of degrees in economics and political science, remain even capable of such a cognitive stumble is distressing, not for the waste of one mind (which is apparent we can afford to lose), but for what your blunder implies about the educational system to which society entrusts its every young mind.

        Next time you feel the urge to bolster your status by pulling out your baccalaureate for all to see, best check the competition to make sure yours stands up to measure.

        • This is the second time you’ve replied to me and still failed to address any of the points I brought up. My first paragraph was an example of the different standard applied to each candidate. Once again, one worked in government, one is an actual billionaire with open ties to Wall St. No tenuous connections you have to bend over backwards to prove with Trump.

          Since you took the time to ignore all of my points again and go on another tangent about my background, I’ll just assume you agree with what I said.

          FYI for future reference, when critiquing arguments, you do not get to decide which points you want to refute (even though all of my post was one idea, but apparently you can’t read). I can tell that college degrees are a sensitive subject for you, so I’ll just assume you never got far enough to learn this.

          • One’s a self made billionaire with ties to Wall street, the other has taken hundreds of millions from to foreign governments and and Wall street.
            I thought a degree in political science was a prerequisite to to taking socialist propaganda 101, at least it was when I took the class.

          • “My first paragraph was an example of the different standard applied to each candidate.”

            No it wasn’t. You depicted Hillary in a positive light (a public servant), Trump in a negative light (corrupt braggart), and expressed amazement that anyone would view Hillary negatively. By applying a different standard for each candidate you concocted a false comparison, and then condemned Trump supporters for not using your disparate standards. Are you even capable of objectively critiquing Hillary’s track record? If the answer is yes, then with your first criticism of her you would be guilty of your own who, what, and why.

            “Once again, one worked in government, one is an actual billionaire with open ties to Wall St.”

            Another disaster of an observation. Contrasting government employment against business success (plus Wall Street connections) with the implication of an innate moral disparity is lunacy. Former vice-president Spiro Agnew spent his life in government service (before his corruption conviction); would you rate his integrity above that of Bill Gates, “an actual billionaire” who expanded his fortune through decades of Wall Street dealings (Cascade Investments LLC)?

            “No tenuous connections you have to bend over backwards to prove with Trump.”

            Bending over backwards to properly evaluate the tenuous connections powerful government officials have with influence seekers is a critical function of both government investigative agencies and the concerned public (which, ideally, could rely on the media). Are you against this practice?

            “Since you took the time to ignore all of my points again and go on another tangent about my background, I’ll just assume you agree with what I said.”

            What you assume is no concern of mine.

            “FYI for future reference, when critiquing arguments, you do not get to decide which points you want to refute (even though all of my post was one idea, but apparently you can’t read). I can tell that college degrees are a sensitive subject for you, so I’ll just assume you never got far enough to learn this.”

            Shall I assume that, by way of your impressive education, you’ve been granted omnipotent powers regarding the critiquing of posted comments and arguments? Do your powers include the right to condemn Hillary’s critics for the high crime of neither liking nor trusting her? Are you as exempt from contradiction as you apparently are from the rules of syntax?

            You inserted yourself into this exchange and, when challenged, immediately played the arrogance card, presuming yourself smarter and better educated than others here. Ironically, the habit of assuming things without evidence is common to both the ignorant and the poorly trained, resulting in your pompous posturing backfiring. But even better, in a dazzling example of irony squared, you went on use your own clunky writing style and juvenile arguments to relieve others of having to make assumptions about your intelligence. Unfortunately for you the evidence is in and, as Mark Twain would’ve said, “You’ve removed all doubt.”

  18. Oh duffman123
    Trump knows Hillary takes bribes, it how successful businesses is done in most of the world.
    The Clintons are expert at it, exactly why we don’t need that beast back in the White House.

  19. > People don’t think much of your degree, do they.

    > Close, economics and political science.

    Memo to Working Guys:

    Which would you rather have?

    A.) Duffman’s degree in political science and two hundred thousand dollars in student debt? Or,

    B.) A completely paid off Ford F150 pickup truck with a killer sound system?

    Hint: You don’t even need Duffman’s degree in economics ($200,000+ debt) to figure this one out.

    • Throw in a hunting rifle, a banjo and a pair of prosthetic buck teeth — and I’ll take option B any day!! Can of Skoal and bottle of Jim Beam optional :)

        • It’s true. You’ve been engaged in a lot of debates about whether Mexicans are like real people. But no, we don’t think we need buck teeth. We just like making fun of the hypoxic, as you do.

          By the way, took you a while for that comeback, Bubbles. You’re getting old. Don’t tell me you have other stuff to do.

  20. Stereotype Mexicans have buck teeth? I thought it was handlebar mustaches a bandler, a sombrero and a bottle of Tequila. None of my self respecting Mexican friends chew tobacco or would be caught dead with Jim Beam.

    • > Stereotype Mexicans have buck teeth?

      No! No! No!

      Mexican teeth are just wonderful. I have always admired MEXICANO’s teeth.

      It is the stereotype that Mexicans have of working guys who like Ford F150 pickup trucks that I was deploring. Somehow, MEXICANO got the ignorant idea that Mexicans need buck teeth to be hypoxic and/or like Ford F150 pickup trucks.

      Don’t ask me why MEXICANO thinks it’s a good idea to be hypoxic.

      • Now there’s the Bubble we know and love. Beautiful comeback. Not too speedy this time – you had to sleep on it overnight. That’s ok. Now be a good Bubble. Get a magazine, go to the bathroom, and solve things by yourself. Before someone gets hurt.

        • Oh,
          I think he was making fun of a Bubba not Bubble, he was confused thinking you were a southern Democrat voting for Hillary. We used to call Bill Clinton Bubba, hypoxia being a by product of smoking big cigars and snorting cocain.
          Well maybe he smoked the cigars after he Miss used them.

  21. One thing that has really struck me over the past few days is the way/ or reason that people here on SJI and other places have lined up against Donald Trump.

    It’s not that they’re against Trump that bothers me; it’s the reasoning behind it.

    In virtually every case, the main reasons given for the strongly-worded denunciation of Trump’s candidacy is that … he’s not actually a conservative, or a serious candidate.

    Now, i’m not disputing those claims. But i think it’s fascinating that the go-to reason not to support Trump is because he’s not a true conservative, or a serious candidate. And it’s not because he’s a megalomaniacal racist without a shred of experience and seemingly no interest in learning about what the presidency would actually entail; he would be a huge disaster for our country and, indeed, for the entire world; AND as you read or learn more about the people who are excited about him… that they are almost exclusively conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and extremists of various other flavors who unite behind a banner of hatred, bigotry, anger, and a delusional sense of victimization.

    But, sure, like most people i guess he’s also not particularly interested in things traditional conservatives go for these days, like limited government, unwavering support for gun ownership, opposing marriage equality, and banning abortion.

    • > AND as you read or learn more about the people who are excited about him… that they are almost exclusively conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and extremists of various other flavors who unite behind a banner of hatred, bigotry, anger, and a delusional sense of victimization.

      OR, maybe they’re just people who want to make America great again.

      • as you all can read and see that…Trump’s comments line up with the historic pattern for white racists and groups who wait for politicians to use code words like: “Make America Great Again to call them to arms.

        • Ross,
          Your words line up with the intolerant, paranoid, guilt ridden, socialist, bigot cult your “Red Diaper Doper” parents seem to have been, and you the product on the left wing controlled SEIU government school.

          How many slaves did your southern Democrat great grandparents own on that cotton plantation that makes you feel so guilty? Are you related to Andy Jackson?

          • Was that racist or xenophobic, I did pick on a specific subgroup of guilt ridden former slave owners?
            I just want to make sure my insults don’t offend anyone important.

  22. Well, there you go Jennifer, another violation of SJI’s comments policy:

    > We will not post racist, sexist or sexually explicit comments, obvious commercial promotion, off-topic comments or comments that constitute a slur against a person or group.

    ROSS says:

    > Trump’s comments line up with the historic pattern for white racists

    I could say “white racist” is based on “some unchangeable part of who they are” and is not intended to be complimentary. It is “a slur against a person or a group” based in “whiteness”.

    • I appreciate you trying to help police the comments, but the above-mentioned passage doesn’t violate our policy either. Mentioning an ethnicity isn’t in and of itself a slur. Ross up there is talking about a specific sub-group of white people who are racist. So his contention is with their behavior, not their ethnicity. For future reference, a slur is defined by my dictionary as “a derogatory or disrespectful nickname for a racial group, used without restraint.” The term “white” doesn’t fit that description. Like I told another commenter earlier, we try to delete all comments that violate our policy. But we’re also very short-staffed, so some stuff gets past us. Thanks again for trying to help, though.

      • > Ross up there is talking about a specific sub-group of white people who are racist.


        You explanation is sophistic.

        The poster makes NO distinction between whites who are not racist and “white racists”. He is simply stating that “white racism” is an attribute of white people.

        It’s an invidious slur. The terms “racist” and “white racist” in the lexicon of “progressives” always refers to white people.

        I will repeat my challenge to you: gives us five instances where the New York Times characterized a non-white person as “racist”.

        It doesn’t happen. “Racist” means “white” in progressive-speak.

        • Trying to keep an open mind, but not sure I see your logic. Why wouldn’t “white racists” mean “those among whites who are racists” rather than “all whites?” The “progressive” bannermen of the day — Bernie and Hillary — are white.

        • And by the way, in November 2008 the New York Times had an opinion piece regarding Egyptian racism toward Sudanese. In May 2016, there was a NYT article on Arab Algerian racism toward non-Muslims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *