When will people get over "deplorables"?

[AmericanNation]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

I don't know how much effect it will have politically, but

You have an over the top example of Hillary MAKING a bigoted comment.
The audience laughed and applauded a bigot.

Trump has said controversial things, nothing was this offensive or wrong.

She said 50% of Trump's supporters are:
“The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it."
...She's talking about 25 to 30 million Americans. 
Military veterans and the people who make the country function are Trump's base --- they are the opposite of deplorable they are honorable. 

Part of the damage isn't the insult though, it is that it is so wrong and out of touch with reality that it scares people.  If you wanted to look at it sure maybe 1 to 2% of Trumps support could be called one of those things, but More of Hillary's supporters could by far.  She says it to feed the smug sense of moral superiority that leftist idiots and elitists get high off of.  You have a cult of delusional-s who need to lie in order to feel better about themselves. 

The fact that you have people saying:
yes she should say this and
 "cultural conservatism is the new euphemism for bigotry"
etc
is evidence that people are in a scary bubble of hate. 

Trump says he doesn't like people breaking the law -- Dems call him racist
Hillary says 30 million people are deplorable scum based on her bigoted thought process -- Dems agree
Who are the bigots???

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

1) Birther stuff was started by Hillary Clinton and fueled by Obama acting really weird about it...
Kind of a weird thing, but the worst actors in the saga are Democrats. 

2) Obama has more affiliation with Islam than any other religion.  His education by Muslims, living in Muslim countries, his family being Muslim, the only church he has claimed to belong to was led by a racist 'former' Muslim Jeremiah Wright, but he says he isn't a Muslim...
I think he is pretty obviously an atheist, but he clearly over sympathizes with Islam.

3) Not sure what you're talking about with white supremacy, so I can't comment. 

The first 2 are pretty reasonable given the circumstances, so no not disgraceful at all.  It seems like a nauseating gotcha game dems like to play.  They pretend justified suspicion or interest is some sort of super crazy.  Maybe study people sometime, you might learn something.       

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

If he publicly denied being Russian Orthodox, then it would indeed be bigoted to assume that, as it would imply that Russian Orthodoxy was somehow a suspect religion.

LOL, it isn't bigoted to try and figure out the truth... the wrong is on the guy lying about his religion, background, sympathies, etc.  

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

If he publicly denied being Russian Orthodox, then it would indeed be bigoted to assume that, as it would imply that Russian Orthodoxy was somehow a suspect religion.

LOL, it isn't bigoted to try and figure out the truth... the wrong is on the guy lying about his religion, background, sympathies, etc.  

This is like the Hillary health saga.  She is displaying nearly all the symptoms of a neurological disease.  If someone says "I think she has parkinson's disease" They aren't racist, bigoted, or homophobic.  They are trying to figure out the truth based on math, science, wisdom, etc.  The Clinton's lying about everything makes it impossible to believe them.     

[AmericanNation]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

Robert Byrd long ago apologized for being a Klan member, and compiled a mostly liberal record in public office on civil rights matters.  Jesse Jackson has not yet apologized for calling NYC "Hymietown" in 1984.  Al Sharpton has never apologized for perpetuating a hoax that smeared the name of white police officers in the Tawana Brawley matter, nor have the Democratic elite shunned them.  But I digress.

Whatever one's beliefs, folks have at least a moral right to believe that their President has their best interests as Americans at heart.  It is sad that black folks haven't had that at least from the Grover Cleveland Administration until LBJ, and the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies did, indeed, engage in "Southern Strategies".  I'm not for that at all.  But I'm also not in favor of a President governing America by doing, say, white folks in Appalachia in the same way that many Presidents did black folks.  That's Hillary's message to 25% of America; that they're scum, and now it's THEIR turn to be oppressed.  The guesswork is in trying to figure out who comprises the 25%.

Trump's comments on Mexicans may have been over the top, but he wasn't referring to American citizens.  He was referring to foreigners who sought to crash our border, and pointing out that a significant number of these folks have, indeed, engaged in crimes within the US.  He has no obligation to those folks beyond dealing with them in a Constitutional manner during the deportation process and respecting their Constitutional rights to due process of law.  Trump has, to date, never disparaged a group of American citizens as (edit:)Hillary did.  Trump, indeed, is far more likely to conduct himself in a manner as being President of ALL Americans, even in polarizing times, than Hillary Clinton will.  "Stronger Together" isn't a governing philosophy for a Hillary Clinton Administration; it's a rallying cry for the Democratic Left, pure and simple.  And that's fine for being a candidate.  But let's dispel the notion that Hillary Clinton is a candidate that considers the welfare of every American citizen to be important.  (I doubt the re-education camps she intends for the "deplorables" will even be air-conditioned, lol.)

Exactly right.

You must be punished because your grandfather was alive when someone else's grandfather did something to someone is the dems 'best' justification for this crap...  yea your family may have freed the slaves, BUT you must pay for the sins of someone who owned a slave, etc etc.   

Yea, you are the party founded to end slavery. and yea the dems are the party of slavery, segregation, jim crow, and the clan, BUT you are white, so you're racist. 

Can any dems talk anymore without devolving into this stupidity???
the answer is basically no, because they automatically go to this when they lose an argument and they can't put forward any winning arguments.

[AmericanNation]

She has never called for anyone to be "oppressed". She called racism and sexism "deplorable", because that's what they are- a disgrace upon our country's name. "Re-education camps" are nothing but a purifies conspiracy theory.

those words are(were) important words with meaning.  

They should be used carefully.

They should be used only when something fits perfectly into context and definition.

You have shown zero context and met zero criteria of the definitions.

You are acting recklessly and wrongly, just like Hillary Clinton.  

Misuse of those words and the actions / decisions  made by a person who believes in the massive misuse of those words is / will be oppressive and wrong.  She is calling for people to be dismissed and silenced (wrongly) for no reason.  

As for re-education camps, they are real and their is mountains of evidence.
simply type
"mandatory college diversity courses"
into a search engine.  
you get at least 86 million hits.
The euphemism "diversity" is used to push a lot of really stupid stuff for no reason... you aren't allowed to point out all the stupid / incorrect stuff in the mandatory brainwash session.  You are forced to admit guilt for your transgressions, even if you haven't done anything... classic maoist re-education camps.  

[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

[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