I understand the difference, you don't seem understand my point. The Pepe character, a single component, is used to construct alt right iterations of the meme, which makes it perfectly analogous to using letters to construct a racist message. Letters by themselves are not representative of any message, and neither is Pepe for the same f*cking reason. I'm surprised it took is this long to get to this point.
I get the point you're wanting to make, so please don't say I'm the one who doesn't understand. The problem is that your point isn't a good one. If you think letters, which are graphemes used to construct words, are the same as pepe, which is being used as a specific and consistent symbol for hate, despite everything I've said, then I cannot help you. When neo Nazis starting dressing the letter A as a hateful symbol and using it as an avatar, please let me know, because until then, the letter A is not being used as a specific symbol for hate; it's being used as a letter to construct words. If you want to talk about how words can be symbols for hate, great. That's another story. Your analogy is poorly constructed and has a glaring flaw that I have pointed out numerous times.
So racist iterations of the meme are racist and alt right iterations of the meme are alt right. This was never contested by anyone.
Then why are you arguing with me? It's perfectly fine for a campaign to acknowledge the consistent alt right usage and adoption of the pepe meme.
No, it's not. Don't tell me why I shouldn't pick Trump, I'll be the judge of that and base my decision on what he says - tell me why I should pick *you*, that's the purpose of your campaign.
First, if a candidate is deplorable, it's perfectly fine to say, "This candidate is deplorable for these reasons. This is one of the many reasons why you should vote for me instead." Second, the point of a campaign is to both convince you why A is good and to convince you why B is bad. Your unrealistic expectations of what a campaign is or should be is laughable.
There are no morals in business. Trump is not responsible what Kadafi did just because he made deals with him. The U.S. government makes deals with morally questionable individuals all the time, which doesn't make it liable for what those individuals do outside of those deals.
Putting aside the fact that the U.S. government has made deals with questionable individuals before, which is true, you really think it's morally okay to sustain a dictator and/or terrorist through business just because it's good for you? You think that shows good judgement from someone who is running to be president of the United States and claims to be America-first? I'm not arguing that doing business with a terrorist makes one guilty of terrorism, so don't make another one of your many strawman arguments, but it does make one an enabler.
Saudi Arabia is a country that funds terrorism, the Clinton foundation made deals with Saudi Arabia, the Clinton foundation belongs to the Clintons, the situation is analogous, QED.
If you think the Clinton Foundation
made deals with Saudi Arabia, you need to do more research, because you sound like a moron who doesn't comprehend the situation. In addition, Hillary was not on the Clinton Foundation board, and she had no position of power at State when the money was donated. You're talking about donations to a charity, purely on the receiving end, not business.
I brought it up because it's relevant and analogous to the Kadafi case.
It's not. Try again.
That's definitely true, it just doesn't work in your favour.
You seriously think the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is talking policy positions, rhetoric, etc., is slinging more mud than the conspiracy-ridden alt-right Trump campaign that targets her emails, health, fake donation scandals, etc.? Remember that we're talking about the same Trump campaign that panders to outright racists and discusses policy only so far as to say "I'm not telling" and "It's going to be great"?
Sure. That's why she hasn't called a press conference since December last year, aside from her alt right speech, unless I missed something.
How the hell is this relevant to her focus on policy? lol
While Trump "focuses" on her health, she focuses on his tax return, so it's an embarrassing sh*t show all around.
While Hillary Clinton has followed the standard protocol when it comes to releasing health records, Trump has not followed the norm of releasing his tax returns. Given the very real possibility of a conflict of interest when it comes to Trump and his business, let alone questions about his tax rate, etc., it is very reasonable to want to talk about why Trump is hiding his tax return for the first time since Watergate and why he's lying about why he can't release his taxes.
In other words, presidential policy has a very real potential effect on Trump's finances. It's important that we see what those effects are, where the conflicts of interest might be, etc. Continued baseless conspiracy theories about a candidate's health is pure mud-slinging. To even compare the two things is a level of intellectual dishonesty that I'm not even surprised to see from you anymore. It's sickens me enough that I don't really want to continue this conversation.
Can we leave Pepe alone now? There's literally nothing more to talk about here and repeating ourselves over and over is exhausting.
I'll leave pepe alone when you leave Hillary Clinton's campaign alone for merely acknowledging a symbol associated with white supremacy.
