Of course Iknow Trump will only benefit Trump, but the people who voted for him knew that the status quo wasn't benefitting them whereas they didn't know for sure that Trump won't benefit them.

Oh, come on. The VRA was manifestly unconstitutional. And Congress could have easily addressed the issue by amending it to apply the provisions to all states, but they didn't, and like always SOCTUS takes the blame for Congress' fuck-up.

That's an incredibly broad brush. There was nothing in Trump's platform about killing gays. Clinton, on the other hand, explicitly called for America to be run as a theocracy. Does that make all Clinton voters hate atheists?

Yeah, they let women vote.

I'm really having trouble understanding what that's supposed to mean.

You mean, do something, and then afterwards ask whether it's okay?

That is the plain meaning. If you can't even make it clear what you mean by "explicit", how are you going to make it clear whether you consent?

As in, verbal? Who the hell gets verbal consent in the real world?

I'm pretty confident that it won't end with security guards asking me to hand over some cash.

Is that the Canadian pronunciation of "sorry"?

The proper response is to sue them, not send armed men to collect "restitution" on the spot.

On the subject of Lochte, he did give money to armed men. I'd say that, technically, that can be interpreted as armed robbery. I find it a bit odd that the media is willing to flat-out call Lochte a liar, but are a lot more equivocal regarding people like Clinton and Trump. I'm sure if Clinton were dragged to a police…

The Nuremberg defense was that the defendants were part of a military hierarchy and had a legal obligation, backed up by the real threat of death, to respect the chain of command.

There exist several interpretations of it that do make sense. For instance:
"Trump's behavior prior to becoming the nominee was worse than Bush's now"
"Bush working at NBC is no longer a possibility, but Trump being elected is still quite likely"
etc. etc.

So, you are claiming without support that Rush is claiming without support that the "left" hates objective morality and using that to immunize Trump from all criticism, even from people who don't subscribe to that position, whatever the hell "hate objective morality" means.

It depends on what you mean by "explicit".

Consent is the horcrux of the issue? Sorry, my ears are a bit stuffed up.

You mean the urban legend about its etymology?

And God forbid you shoot the meddling bastards. Then they send in the murder police!

Carson ceased to be a good role model the moment he got involved in politics. And before he got into politics, how many people had heard of him?