Is "basket of deplorables" Hillary's 47% moment?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:15:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Is "basket of deplorables" Hillary's 47% moment?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
Poll
Question: -skip-
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 233

Author Topic: Is "basket of deplorables" Hillary's 47% moment?  (Read 22960 times)
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: September 12, 2016, 05:31:27 PM »

ag, what will be your reaction if Trump is reelected in 2020?

I do not, generally, follow electoral type events.

Not even this year? Smiley

Of course not.

So no need to be bothered about the outcome of this election then, even if Trump wins. 

I do care about elections.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: September 12, 2016, 05:32:34 PM »

Hillary is scum honest for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text. scum



Corrected.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: September 12, 2016, 05:35:20 PM »

Hillary is scum for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text.

Her so called apology is laughable.  She apologizes in percentages.

No wonder 2/3 of Americans don't trust Hillary.  

She may as well spend three days recovering because all she's been doing lately is hobnobbing with her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street, with her hedge fund manager friends, raising money, and viscously attacking and demeaning millions of ordinary, hard working Americans, while her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street laugh, and hobnobbing with multi-millionaire extreme leftist Hollywood actors.

Perhaps she can spend her down time erasing e-mails and writing more speeches viscously attacking ordinary, hard working, tax paying Americans.

I'm curious: how do you differentiate this from Mitt Romney's 47% comment?

I am not in the least concerned with something Romney said 4 years ago.  Ancient history.

I am concerned with 2016.

OK, but I didn't ask about your emotional reaction or level of "concern."  I know that fades over time.  I asked about your intellectual evaluation.  Unless there's something in the context you can't recall after four years, you're totally capable of evaluating Romney's statement.

So, I'll ask again:

You just called Clinton "scum" for "showing contempt" toward a broad swath of ordinary Americans (half of Trump voters).  Do you see Romney's statement as "showing contempt" toward a broad swath of Americans?  Did it make him "scum"?  If the answer to either question is "no," how are the situations different enough to make that differentiation reasonable?
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: September 12, 2016, 05:38:53 PM »

Hillary is scum for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text.

Her so called apology is laughable.  She apologizes in percentages.

No wonder 2/3 of Americans don't trust Hillary. 

She may as well spend three days recovering because all she's been doing lately is hobnobbing with her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street, with her hedge fund manager friends, raising money, and viscously attacking and demeaning millions of ordinary, hard working Americans, while her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street laugh, and hobnobbing with multi-millionaire extreme leftist Hollywood actors.

Perhaps she can spend her down time erasing e-mails and writing more speeches viscously attacking ordinary, hard working, tax paying Americans.

What would you call people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc ?
They are obviously deplorable .... and that is a "mild" description of these people, compared to what I would call them.
No really .... I want you to answer the question .... What would you call these type of people ?
Give me a word or two to describe them.

Let me ask you what is more deplorable; a person uncomfortable with unfettered illegal immigration, or Bill Clinton who uses his position to get sex from young women while married?  

Hillary Clinton called 25% of America as "deplorable".  That's what she did.  And it's what she thinks.  And why they're "deplorable" is because they find both her and her husband deplorable and have a coherent argument to make in that regard.  Truthfully, this comment is far more reprehensible than Romney's 47% comment, or Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment; those comments were, at least to some degree, observations.  Hillary Clinton went way beyond that; she cast a judgement on a huge number of folks she doesn't know, and doesn't like, all because they don't like her.  "Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."   This standard has been applied to Donald Trump.  It's time it be applied to Hillary Clinton.  Oddly enough, this is one of the most candid and honest statements she's made in all of her pubic life.

Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: September 12, 2016, 05:42:42 PM »



Hillary Clinton called 25% of America as "deplorable".  


That is, actually, very generous. In most nations the proportion of deplorables rarely dips below 75%.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: September 12, 2016, 06:01:31 PM »

Hillary is scum for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text.

Her so called apology is laughable.  She apologizes in percentages.

No wonder 2/3 of Americans don't trust Hillary.  

She may as well spend three days recovering because all she's been doing lately is hobnobbing with her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street, with her hedge fund manager friends, raising money, and viscously attacking and demeaning millions of ordinary, hard working Americans, while her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street laugh, and hobnobbing with multi-millionaire extreme leftist Hollywood actors.

Perhaps she can spend her down time erasing e-mails and writing more speeches viscously attacking ordinary, hard working, tax paying Americans.

I'm curious: how do you differentiate this from Mitt Romney's 47% comment?

I am not in the least concerned with something Romney said 4 years ago.  Ancient history.

I am concerned with 2016.

OK, but I didn't ask about your emotional reaction or level of "concern."  I know that fades over time.  I asked about your intellectual evaluation.  Unless there's something in the context you can't recall after four years, you're totally capable of evaluating Romney's statement.

So, I'll ask again:

You just called Clinton "scum" for "showing contempt" toward a broad swath of ordinary Americans (half of Trump voters).  Do you see Romney's statement as "showing contempt" toward a broad swath of Americans?  Did it make him "scum"?  If the answer to either question is "no," how are the situations different enough to make that differentiation reasonable?

Romney in 2012 with his "47%" comment came off as condescending, but he was making a legitimate observation.  It was smarmy that he didn't have the guts to make his argument in the open, where it could be debated, but it was a legitimate observation that deserved public discussion, given that the entitlement issue is one of the 800 pound fiscal gorillas in the room today.  I was an Obama voter in 2012, and I don't have a negative opinion of Obama, but the "makers vs. takers" issue in American politics is not an illegitimate one, and is deserving of honest, thoughtful, and open discussion.  Ronald Reagan was not wrong when he said that every time you create a Federal program, you create a constituency for it that comes to depend on it and will fight, politically, to keep it in effect, regardless on the effect of the whole of America, and anyone who believes otherwise needs to be honest with themselves.  The flip side of that observation is that we have had such an extreme flow of wealth upward, rather than downward, that we have become a nation where, indeed, more people than ever have nowhere but the government to turn to for help, and that, too, ought to be seen as another 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Romney was not, however, judging the whole of folks.  He did not call them "deadbeats" or "moochers"; he coolly observed, essentially, that more people than ever get a government benefit and view it as a right, and a FUNDAMENTAL right at that, and not just a mere legislated right.  Indeed, Romney was far more polite than Ronald Reagan, who told Welfare Queen stories and the like.  Romney reflected an elitist point of view, but he was observational, and not judgmental.  I would apply the latter statement to something like Obama's statement about folks "clinging to their guns and their religion", etc., he wasn't judgmental, but it was an observation, and not an entirely inaccurate one.

Hillary, on the other hand, just judged and condemned 25% of America as trash.  "Deplorables".  That's way different than what Romney did in 2012 or Obama did in 2008.  And the sad thing about it was that this was a rare time when she was being honest and candid.  She can't be honest and candid about her actions as SoS, but she can sure let loose with what she thinks of folks who'll never vote for her and, even worse, won't listen to her reasoning.   If Trump and Pence are wise, they should take the tack that, in this case, no apology is even possible.
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: September 12, 2016, 06:21:45 PM »

Hillary is not condemning those who simply support Trump because they dislike her. She is condemning those who support Trump because they see him as promising a return to the "old" social order (see: Make America Great Again), whereby heterosexual white males were the unimpeachable top of the heap, and all others had to fight for a seat on the bus, much less high office (see: Trump's milk-white, 73% male Supreme Court shortlist). His scapegoating of Hispanics (and, to a lesser extent, African Americans) for our societal ills reflects that; his denunciation of Judge Curiel for "Mexican heritage" does as well. Like it or not, there is a significant portion of his base (not all of it, not half of it, but he wouldn't have gotten through the primary without it, that's for sure) which supports him out of some sort of bigotry; these are NOT the people who see him as the lesser of two evils.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: September 12, 2016, 06:22:01 PM »

So let me get this straight, Mitt Romney saying that 47% of the country is dependent on government and won't vote for him is worse than Hillary Clinton calling 20% of the country 'deplorable'? WTF
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: September 12, 2016, 06:35:57 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2016, 06:39:33 PM by Alcon »

Romney in 2012 with his "47%" comment came off as condescending, but he was making a legitimate observation.  It was smarmy that he didn't have the guts to make his argument in the open, where it could be debated, but it was a legitimate observation that deserved public discussion, given that the entitlement issue is one of the 800 pound fiscal gorillas in the room today.  I was an Obama voter in 2012, and I don't have a negative opinion of Obama, but the "makers vs. takers" issue in American politics is not an illegitimate one, and is deserving of honest, thoughtful, and open discussion.  Ronald Reagan was not wrong when he said that every time you create a Federal program, you create a constituency for it that comes to depend on it and will fight, politically, to keep it in effect, regardless on the effect of the whole of America, and anyone who believes otherwise needs to be honest with themselves.  The flip side of that observation is that we have had such an extreme flow of wealth upward, rather than downward, that we have become a nation where, indeed, more people than ever have nowhere but the government to turn to for help, and that, too, ought to be seen as another 800 pound gorilla in the room.

OK, so thus far, I'm gathering that you see Romney as broaching a reasonable political issue (welfare dependency) and Clinton, not.  You concede that Romney did it poorly, overestimating the percentage of people who fit his description, failing to recognize the economic issues posed by the "makers," and being smarmy by making the comments in a wealthy room.

First point of small disagreement:  I think Clinton was broaching a reasonable political issue.  I agree her numbering was off even more than Romney's, and her statement more vitriolic.  However, I think it's reasonable to discuss it when politicians avoid antagonizing objectionable groups in order to receive their support.  Both sides do this, but Trump does it more than most.

Romney was not, however, judging the whole of folks.  He did not call them "deadbeats" or "moochers"; he coolly observed, essentially, that more people than ever get a government benefit and view it as a right, and a FUNDAMENTAL right at that, and not just a mere legislated right.  Indeed, Romney was far more polite than Ronald Reagan, who told Welfare Queen stories and the like.  Romney reflected an elitist point of view, but he was observational, and not judgmental.  I would apply the latter statement to something like Obama's statement about folks "clinging to their guns and their religion", etc., he wasn't judgmental, but it was an observation, and not an entirely inaccurate one.

Hillary, on the other hand, just judged and condemned 25% of America as trash.  "Deplorables".  That's way different than what Romney did in 2012 or Obama did in 2008.  And the sad thing about it was that this was a rare time when she was being honest and candid.  She can't be honest and candid about her actions as SoS, but she can sure let loose with what she thinks of folks who'll never vote for her and, even worse, won't listen to her reasoning.   If Trump and Pence are wise, they should take the tack that, in this case, no apology is even possible.

I agree with you that Clinton's statement involved more unacceptable vitriol.  However, keep in mind that I'm asking this question of Winfield, who basically thought Mitt Romney was a statesman beyond reproach.  I can certainly see someone arguing Clinton's statement was worse than Romney's -- I'd agree with that -- but I can't see someone seeing Clinton's statement as making her "scum" while Romney's statement is completely acceptable.  I don't think it's sufficient just to say Clinton's was more vitriolic and judgmental.  Romney's may not have explicitly said "these are bad people," but he did say "I'll never convince [the 47%] that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  This seems pretty antagonistic to me, and even if it isn't, it's definitely "demeaning."  If Clinton's statement was totally unacceptable and made her "scum," I don't think it's reasonable to argue Romney's statement was acceptable, as I believe Winfield has.

Additionally, and this is not to defend Clinton, but Trump does this crap way more.  Clinton is basically guilty of falling for the availability heuristic and then being a jerk about it.  She failed to consider the size of the population she was demeaning, and that was also a failure of empathy, since she insulted a lot of people in the process in a really broad way.  You don't think that Trump thinks in hasty generalizations and black-and-white abstractions way, way more than just about any modern presidential candidate?  That's basically his entire personality, dude.  If this behavior is a disqualifier for Clinton, I don't see how it isn't for Trump.

edit: I also think it mitigates Clinton's quote a little bit that she led with admitting it was a hasty generalization, and quickly apologized for the 50% figure.  Can you ever imagine Trump doing similar with the hasty generalizations he makes?
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: September 12, 2016, 06:36:48 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2016, 08:03:59 PM by ProudModerate2 »

Hillary is scum for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text.
Her so called apology is laughable.  She apologizes in percentages.
No wonder 2/3 of Americans don't trust Hillary.  
She may as well spend three days recovering because all she's been doing lately is hobnobbing with her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street, with her hedge fund manager friends, raising money, and viscously attacking and demeaning millions of ordinary, hard working Americans, while her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street laugh, and hobnobbing with multi-millionaire extreme leftist Hollywood actors.
Perhaps she can spend her down time erasing e-mails and writing more speeches viscously attacking ordinary, hard working, tax paying Americans.

What would you call people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc ?
They are obviously deplorable .... and that is a "mild" description of these people, compared to what I would call them.
No really .... I want you to answer the question .... What would you call these type of people ?
Give me a word or two to describe them.

Let me ask you what is more deplorable; a person uncomfortable with unfettered illegal immigration, or Bill Clinton who uses his position to get sex from young women while married?  
Hillary Clinton called 25% of America as "deplorable".  That's what she did.  And it's what she thinks.  And why they're "deplorable" is because they find both her and her husband deplorable and have a coherent argument to make in that regard.  Truthfully, this comment is far more reprehensible than Romney's 47% comment, or Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment; those comments were, at least to some degree, observations.  Hillary Clinton went way beyond that; she cast a judgement on a huge number of folks she doesn't know, and doesn't like, all because they don't like her.  "Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."   This standard has been applied to Donald Trump.  It's time it be applied to Hillary Clinton.  Oddly enough, this is one of the most candid and honest statements she's made in all of her pubic life.

Once again Fuzzy, you twist reality and certain words to fit your "comfort" religious life that you so claim to boast about (in another thread).
What do I mean by "twisting" :

1) Hillary did not call "a person uncomfortable with unfettered illegal immigration" as deplorable.
She called those specific individuals that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
People can be "uncomfortable" about our current "illegal immigration" policies, and be good individuals with these concerns. They are NOT deplorables.
So stop twisting words and descriptions, to try and make it sound like the target of Clinton's statement includes the entire population of the planet.

2) Clinton almost immediately corrected herself and said that her "half" (50%) estimate of trump supporters, was incorrect. It is obviously smaller, but don't be fooled ..... the number of deplorables is still quite large among trump followers.

3) If you require a visual to get it through your thick-skull on EXACTLY who the deplorables are within trump's cult, WATCH THIS VIDEO :
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html

4) I don't condone anything that Bill Clinton did with other women. It is not anything I would support now, nor back then. (You see, I can at least tell the truth. Unlike you.)

Conclusion: You probably went to Church yesterday, but you need to attend again, tonight. You are obviously telling half-truths and being deceitful in your words, and thus are not honest with yourself or us. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: September 12, 2016, 06:37:08 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2016, 06:39:50 PM by Alcon »

So let me get this straight, Mitt Romney saying that 47% of the country is dependent on government and won't vote for him is worse than Hillary Clinton calling 20% of the country 'deplorable'? WTF

That's not my argument.  Asking Winfield how he differentiated the two wasn't a rhetorical question.  Romney's comment doesn't have to be "worse" for it to be logically inconsistent to consider one unacceptable, and the other totally acceptable.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: September 12, 2016, 07:18:54 PM »

No. Reason: It's kind of true.

Compared to Romney's 47% comment which was disputable.

LOL, something can be "kind of true" and disputable...?  Even if you don't like the classist or dismissive undertones, Romney's comment was 100% factual.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: September 12, 2016, 07:21:32 PM »

No. Reason: It's kind of true.

Compared to Romney's 47% comment which was disputable.

LOL, something can be "kind of true" and disputable...?  Even if you don't like the classist or dismissive undertones, Romney's comment was 100% factual.

No, after the first few words, it definitely wasn't.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: September 12, 2016, 07:43:46 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2016, 07:46:04 PM by Lincoln Republican »

When I heard about the Mitt 47% speech in 2012 I was very disappointed and upset about it.  It was a terrible decision to even give this speech, and this speech should never have been made.

Mitt's statements and Mitt himself deserved to be criticized and condemned for sure, and they were, relentlessly, but I personally do not believe that Mitt's statements were degrading or vitriolic and were certainly not hateful like the statements made by Hillary about certain sectors of the American public.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: September 12, 2016, 07:47:00 PM »

When I heard about the Mitt 47% speech in 2012 I was very disappointed and upset about it.  It was a terrible decision to even give this speech, and this speech should never have been made.

Mitt's statements and Mitt himself deserved to be criticized and condemned for sure, and they were, relentlessly, but I personally do not believe that Mitt's statements were degrading or vitriolic and were certainly not hateful like the statements made by Hillary about certain sectors of the American public.

Fair enough, although I think calling someone "scum" based on one statement they quickly walked back is a little unempathetic itself.  I'm a big believer in the idea that no one should be all about the worst thing they ever said/dead.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: September 12, 2016, 08:16:23 PM »

When I heard about the Mitt 47% speech in 2012 I was very disappointed and upset about it.  It was a terrible decision to even give this speech, and this speech should never have been made.

Mitt's statements and Mitt himself deserved to be criticized and condemned for sure, and they were, relentlessly, but I personally do not believe that Mitt's statements were degrading or vitriolic and were certainly not hateful like the statements made by Hillary about certain sectors of the American public.

Lincoln Republican,
Why is it I have to keep driving the same huge chisel in your head.
She is specifically calling individuals that are racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots, etc as the scum of our society.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT ? !
What do you want us to call these people ... Angels ? Heroes ? Excellent people that we should be proud of and need more of ?
Why are you defending low level filth that unfortunately reside within our nation ? I don't understand you.
Clinton is not calling ALL trump supporters "deplorables." She is not even calling 50% of them deplorables (after she corrected herself). In the same initial speech she gave, she even made room for, and discussed, the other segment of trump supporters who are not in "the basket."
Have you read the transcript or watched the full video of her initial speech ? If not, do so, before you begin to spew more ignorance about the topic.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: September 12, 2016, 08:30:21 PM »

When I heard about the Mitt 47% speech in 2012 I was very disappointed and upset about it.  It was a terrible decision to even give this speech, and this speech should never have been made.

Mitt's statements and Mitt himself deserved to be criticized and condemned for sure, and they were, relentlessly, but I personally do not believe that Mitt's statements were degrading or vitriolic and were certainly not hateful like the statements made by Hillary about certain sectors of the American public.

Fair enough, although I think calling someone "scum" based on one statement they quickly walked back is a little unempathetic itself.  I'm a big believer in the idea that no one should be all about the worst thing they ever said/did.

I agree with this. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we say things in anger or are impaired (alcohol). I admit I have done this before (many moons ago), and later feel guilt. But it's usually a word or two, not going on-and-on throwing racist/sexist/bigoted bombs at someone.
And I have NEVER conducted myself anything close to what we see at some trump rallies. Watch this video if you want to see examples of this type of disgusting conduct: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html
Only a person who consistently spews hatred towards others should be labeled as in "the basket."
Logged
Lothal1
Rookie
**
Posts: 228
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: September 12, 2016, 08:51:50 PM »

Insulting voters makes them show up... see 2012.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: September 12, 2016, 09:01:35 PM »

Insulting voters makes them show up... see 2012.

Yes you are right. God forbid we say anything bad about and insult bigots within our society.
We should allow such scum to run-all-over-us and rule as they please.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: September 12, 2016, 09:17:37 PM »



Don't be so thick; the consistency of this misspelling is creating a sticky situation for you.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: September 12, 2016, 09:54:46 PM »

No. Reason: It's kind of true.

Compared to Romney's 47% comment which was disputable.

LOL, something can be "kind of true" and disputable...?  Even if you don't like the classist or dismissive undertones, Romney's comment was 100% factual.

No, after the first few words, it definitely wasn't.

Fair enough, I guess I just went off my memory of it, being 47% of people are dependent on a larger federal government that's more involved in the economy, which would include pretty much all government employees (which, for all intents and purposes includes public university staff, university nurses and others) and anyone on welfare/government income, too.  A lot of those people vote Republican, but I took Romney's point to mean that those of us wanting a more private-sector-friendly economy have an uphill battle.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: September 12, 2016, 10:14:12 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2016, 10:19:07 PM by Sbane »

At least half of Trump's supporters are racist so I am not sure what is so controversial about this statement. About half of Republicans supported him in the primary when they had other choices. I can understand there are many Republicans who can't support Clinton but they are in the other category. At least half of the people supporting Trump are racists who just want their country back from the non-whites. Great Americans, they are. Anyone who isn't white isn't really American.
And you know this how?



I think the better word is bigot. The people who supported Trump in the primaries are bigots, plain and simple. People who support Trump's candidacy not because they hate Hillary because they like what he says, are bigots.

You seem to think that you are not a bigot. I am here to tell you that you are. You have in the past said that some people are not fit to be immigrants to America. I questioned you on it but you never responded back. America's history is defined by immigration here by Europeans. So why exactly can people not of European background not immigrate here? I can understand opposing illegal immigration as well as supporting limits on the level of immigration. But when you imply that certain people can't immigrate here because of how they look, or the faith that they practice, you are being a bigot. And half of Trump's supporters are most certainly bigots.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: September 12, 2016, 11:03:23 PM »


Great work in finding the one spelling mistake I made in about a million words.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: September 12, 2016, 11:12:56 PM »


Great work in finding the one spelling mistake I made in about a million words.

124 words*
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: September 12, 2016, 11:26:40 PM »

What it will do to Hillary is cost her Pub and some Ind votes.

Any Republicans voting for Hillary this year surely already thought of the people who nominated Donald Trump as deplorable.
As a Republican who has considered voting for Hillary, I have to voice my disagreement with this. I don't have personal ill will toward Trump supporters; I just think they're wrong, and what Hillary said about them makes me less likely to vote for her, because even though to me what she said may be right, I think that's a comment that just shouldn't be made about millions of people over whom Hillary would be president if elected.

Everyone's trying so hard to give me reasons not to vote for them. It's truly unbelievable. I'm just appalled by this entire election.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 15 queries.