When will people get over "deplorables"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

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 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.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

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 Trump 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.)

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.

My "re-education camps" comment was a rare form of sarcasm, hence the lol.  I have a friend who I posted about who really believes this, and that was a bit "out there" to hear that.

But Hillary's "deplorables" was aimed at the parts of White America that will never support her.  She has always had contempt for these folks, going back to her days in Arkansas. 

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.