When will people get over "deplorables"?

[Buffalo Bill]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

OK. Now hold Trump to the same standards. Go ahead; what did he really mean when he spoke about Mexicans being rapists? You tell me. Besides, openly acting on bigotry is a personal choice. Where you're born isn't.

He meant they're rapists.  They're raping our land according to him and our job market.  No such thing as bigotry outside of the Democratic Playbook here.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all... And besides, immigrants have LOWER levels of crime than native-born citizens.

[Buffalo Bill]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all...

Trump's supporters are your average ordinary Americans so what did Clinton mean by deplorables?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all...

Trump's supporters are your average ordinary Americans so what did Clinton mean by deplorables?

If you're allowed to say that Trump meant the land and not the people, then I might as well say that Clinton was talking about the opinions and not the people.

[Buffalo Bill]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all...

Trump's supporters are your average ordinary Americans so what did Clinton mean by deplorables?

If you're allowed to say that Trump meant the land and not the people, then I might as well say that Clinton was talking about the opinions and not the people.

Yes Democrats will say anything to defend her so of course you'll say that which is fine.  Convincing people is the key though.

[Ebsy]

Ironically, the "bleeding from wherever" comment didn't damage Trump in the long term at all, so it sort of confuses me that the village idiots of Bad Atlas are choosing that option.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Ironically, the "bleeding from wherever" comment didn't damage Trump in the long term at all, so it sort of confuses me that the village idiots of Bad Atlas are choosing that option.

That's the point

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all...

Trump's supporters are your average ordinary Americans so what did Clinton mean by deplorables?

If you're allowed to say that Trump meant the land and not the people, then I might as well say that Clinton was talking about the opinions and not the people.

Yes Democrats will say anything to defend her so of course you'll say that which is fine.  Convincing people is the key though.

Um, I don't actually believe that, I'm just pointing out that if you're allowed to spin Trump's quotes, were allowed to spin Clinton's.

[Buffalo Bill]

Ironically, the "bleeding from wherever" comment didn't damage Trump in the long term at all, so it sort of confuses me that the village idiots of Bad Atlas are choosing that option.

One of the comments is agreed with and one is not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

OK. Now hold Trump to the same standards. Go ahead; what did he really mean when he spoke about Mexicans being rapists? You tell me. Besides, openly acting on bigotry is a personal choice. Where you're born isn't.

Choosing to engage in human trafficking, and in raping some of the persons they are trafficking is a choice of Mexican and Central Americans who engage in this manner in an organized way.  These folks are often members of Trans-National gangs and Mexican/Central American drug cartels whose members go across our border and back with impunity, conducting their organization's "business" (human trafficking, drug distribution, enforcing "territory" these gangs claim in American cities).  

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Gang-Arrest-Fact-Sheet_0.pdf

http://cis.org/vaughan/dream-shields-gang-members

http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs

MS-13 and Sur-13, in particular, go back and forth across the porous Mexican border, conducting criminal business in both the US and Mexico.  Legality matters little; their members are well-armed and well-funded to do the business of drug dealing, enforcing "turf", and trafficking in humans, both for sex and immigration purposes.  These folks pose a threat to the well-being of both American citizens and legal immigrants as well as to other folks here illegally who still have the right not to be deprived of their lives without due process of law.

Failing to secure the border (and Hillary intends to keep the border porous) is subjecting Americans to levels of trans-national gang activity that they would not endure with a secure border.  That's a bottom line.  Hillary's intended refusal to secure our border and enforce our existing laws takes this risk on, and she's doing it, quite frankly, in the hopes that it will provide an electorate more tilted to supporting the progressive movement.

And when Trump said "Mexico isn't sending us their best.", he was completely correct.  Mexico has a problem controlling illegal immigration through its own Southern border with Honduras, through which many Central American trans-national gang members pass on their way to the US.  Mexico has actively shepherded these folks through Mexico on their way to the US; they've done this because these folks are a burden on Mexico and our porous border allows Mexico to perpetuate this "dump job" on the US.

Trump isn't asking for radically new immigration plans.  Outside of "the wall", he's proposing only that we fully enforce existing laws.  Hillary Clinton is trying to avoid disclosing her REAL proposal which is "If you can make it across the Rio Grande, you're home free!".  It almost doesn't matter WHAT Hillary's real immigration policy is at this point because what I suggested is what folks on both sides of the issue believe it is.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ironically, the "bleeding from wherever" comment didn't damage Trump in the long term at all, so it sort of confuses me that the village idiots of Bad Atlas are choosing that option.

Lol, how did you managed to miss "the gender gap"?

[AmericanNation]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

[Frodo]

Why would I want them to?  She isn't wrong about how despicable many of Trump's supporters truly are. 

She is just calling a spade a spade. 

[Horus]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

OK. Now hold Trump to the same standards. Go ahead; what did he really mean when he spoke about Mexicans being rapists? You tell me. Besides, openly acting on bigotry is a personal choice. Where you're born isn't.

Choosing to engage in human trafficking, and in raping some of the persons they are trafficking is a choice of Mexican and Central Americans who engage in this manner in an organized way.  These folks are often members of Trans-National gangs and Mexican/Central American drug cartels whose members go across our border and back with impunity, conducting their organization's "business" (human trafficking, drug distribution, enforcing "territory" these gangs claim in American cities).  

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Gang-Arrest-Fact-Sheet_0.pdf

http://cis.org/vaughan/dream-shields-gang-members

http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs

MS-13 and Sur-13, in particular, go back and forth across the porous Mexican border, conducting criminal business in both the US and Mexico.  Legality matters little; their members are well-armed and well-funded to do the business of drug dealing, enforcing "turf", and trafficking in humans, both for sex and immigration purposes.  These folks pose a threat to the well-being of both American citizens and legal immigrants as well as to other folks here illegally who still have the right not to be deprived of their lives without due process of law.

Failing to secure the border (and Hillary intends to keep the border porous) is subjecting Americans to levels of trans-national gang activity that they would not endure with a secure border.  That's a bottom line.  Hillary's intended refusal to secure our border and enforce our existing laws takes this risk on, and she's doing it, quite frankly, in the hopes that it will provide an electorate more tilted to supporting the progressive movement.

And when Trump said "Mexico isn't sending us their best.", he was completely correct.  Mexico has a problem controlling illegal immigration through its own Southern border with Honduras, through which many Central American trans-national gang members pass on their way to the US.  Mexico has actively shepherded these folks through Mexico on their way to the US; they've done this because these folks are a burden on Mexico and our porous border allows Mexico to perpetuate this "dump job" on the US.

Trump isn't asking for radically new immigration plans.  Outside of "the wall", he's proposing only that we fully enforce existing laws.  Hillary Clinton is trying to avoid disclosing her REAL proposal which is "If you can make it across the Rio Grande, you're home free!".  It almost doesn't matter WHAT Hillary's real immigration policy is at this point because what I suggested is what folks on both sides of the issue believe it is.

Mexico and Honduras do not share a border. Did you mean Guatemala?

[Dr. Arch]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

Oh okay, so it's okay to make sweeping statements if the fact of the matter is true for a subset, a small one mind you. Let me try your logic then (Disclaimer: I obviously don't believe this):

A) White people commit mass killings at Black churches
B) X person states that White people are mass murderers and racists
C) Republicans called X person a racist for saying B

--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Republicans don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Republicans want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound


Sounds about right to you? Lemme know.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nice spin... Then I guess we get to say that Clinton was specifically referring to the bigotry itself. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all... And besides, immigrants have LOWER levels of crime than native-born citizens.

That's true of legal immigrants, but not of illegal immigrants.

[AmericanNation]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

Oh okay, so it's okay to make sweeping statements if the fact of the matter is true for a subset, a small one mind you. Let me try your logic then (Disclaimer: I obviously don't believe this):

A) White people commit mass killings at Black churches
B) X person states that White people are mass murderers and racists
C) Republicans called X person a racist for saying B

--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Republicans don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Republicans want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound
Sounds about right to you? Lemme know.

You have to explain this more...
 
Are you saying A is true?
B wouldn't be true unless all whites committed many murders
republicans would say it wouldn't apply to everyone, not call x a racist.  why would you call x a racist?
A isn't true and C wouldn't happen... not sure what your point was.

2B you didn't evidence anything above

[Dr. Arch]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

Oh okay, so it's okay to make sweeping statements if the fact of the matter is true for a subset, a small one mind you. Let me try your logic then (Disclaimer: I obviously don't believe this):

A) White people commit mass killings at Black churches
B) X person states that White people are mass murderers and racists
C) Republicans called X person a racist for saying B

--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Republicans don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Republicans want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound
Sounds about right to you? Lemme know.

You have to explain this more...
 
Are you saying A is true?
B wouldn't be true unless all whites committed many murders
republicans would say it wouldn't apply to everyone, not call x a racist.  why would you call x a racist?
A isn't true and C wouldn't happen... not sure what your point was.

2B you didn't evidence anything above

Yes, A1 is true because it applies to an extremely small subset, and B1, in the same way as the original statement, generalizes it to the super set when X person says that of White people based on A1. C1 makes the same standard claim following the original train of thought.

The second logical process is the same logic applied to the (1) series in both situations. B2 does evidence something at parallel because it uses the same standard of evidence to validate person X's claim as Trump's claim of A1 in series (1).

[Badger]

Hopefully never which is good because we need a president who will raise minimum wage for the poor.

Then why are you supporting Trump?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.      

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above.  
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

The thing is, this also works:

A) White people commit rapes
B) I am calling white people rapists
C) You are going to call me racist

However, by your logic (and note that I do not subscribe to this, but you must to have any semblance of consistency), C is wrong, because A is factually true.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

OK. Now hold Trump to the same standards. Go ahead; what did he really mean when he spoke about Mexicans being rapists? You tell me. Besides, openly acting on bigotry is a personal choice. Where you're born isn't.

Choosing to engage in human trafficking, and in raping some of the persons they are trafficking is a choice of Mexican and Central Americans who engage in this manner in an organized way.  These folks are often members of Trans-National gangs and Mexican/Central American drug cartels whose members go across our border and back with impunity, conducting their organization's "business" (human trafficking, drug distribution, enforcing "territory" these gangs claim in American cities).  

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Gang-Arrest-Fact-Sheet_0.pdf

http://cis.org/vaughan/dream-shields-gang-members

http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs

MS-13 and Sur-13, in particular, go back and forth across the porous Mexican border, conducting criminal business in both the US and Mexico.  Legality matters little; their members are well-armed and well-funded to do the business of drug dealing, enforcing "turf", and trafficking in humans, both for sex and immigration purposes.  These folks pose a threat to the well-being of both American citizens and legal immigrants as well as to other folks here illegally who still have the right not to be deprived of their lives without due process of law.

Failing to secure the border (and Hillary intends to keep the border porous) is subjecting Americans to levels of trans-national gang activity that they would not endure with a secure border.  That's a bottom line.  Hillary's intended refusal to secure our border and enforce our existing laws takes this risk on, and she's doing it, quite frankly, in the hopes that it will provide an electorate more tilted to supporting the progressive movement.

And when Trump said "Mexico isn't sending us their best.", he was completely correct.  Mexico has a problem controlling illegal immigration through its own Southern border with Honduras, through which many Central American trans-national gang members pass on their way to the US.  Mexico has actively shepherded these folks through Mexico on their way to the US; they've done this because these folks are a burden on Mexico and our porous border allows Mexico to perpetuate this "dump job" on the US.

Trump isn't asking for radically new immigration plans.  Outside of "the wall", he's proposing only that we fully enforce existing laws.  Hillary Clinton is trying to avoid disclosing her REAL proposal which is "If you can make it across the Rio Grande, you're home free!".  It almost doesn't matter WHAT Hillary's real immigration policy is at this point because what I suggested is what folks on both sides of the issue believe it is.

Mexico and Honduras do not share a border. Did you mean Guatemala?

You are correct.  Hondurans, however, make up a significant portion of Mexico's illegal immigrants, along with Guatemalans.  There are some Salvadorans here as well. 

Central America, sadly, has a number of failing states.

[ProudModerate2]

I don't think you're pretending to be dense, so i'll bother explaining.
A) illegal immigrants commit rapes
B) Trump said "They're rapists"
C) Democrats called Trump a racist for saying B.
--- C can not be true because A is true.  A factual statement is not racism, it is a factual statement.     

A) If stating facts is not allowed than our society will collapse.
B) Dems don't allow facts to be stated as evidenced by above. 
C) Dems want society to collapse.
--- This is logically sound

A) This must be some of the sh**ttiest and worthless "logic" I have ever read.
B) This sounds racist and bigoted. Are you ?
C) Then people wonder why we dare to put people like this in a "basket."