Trump campaign speaker excitedly calls for "civil war" if Republicans lose the election

Very well said.

 

See, this gives the entire game away here. Hillary Clinton's statement explicitly restricts the classification of "deplorables" and calls for understanding towards the others. Here is the quote:

Now, you extend this out to all of his voters even though the quote explicitly excludes half of his voters. So there are a couple of options:

1. You are being disingenuous and trying to make sure people not listed under those ideologies are offended. This comes with the added bonus of making it morally acceptable or even correct to associate with racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamaphobes, etc.
2. You actually think that the average Trump voter could be labeled under those ideologies and that Clinton was wrong to exclude half of his voters.

You can feel free to pick which is more on point. Either way, the Republican Party has now shown that the stool that holds up their party is not three-legged as Reagan was fond of claiming but four, with social status conservatives (people who want the stratification of society by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) making up the fourth leg.

 

I’m not certain of what year i came to know what about Clinton but i do know that the corruption and sleaze was too much for me in 92 and i could not vote for him. He did a very acceptable job as President though imo.

 

You're silly. And you can't even comprehend the point being made. Which is why you add so much irrelevant verbage.

Bottom line : a vote for Clinton in 96 was NOTHING like a vote for Trump. Ever.

The general public knew he'd admitted to GF in 92. It was definitely uncertain about the credibility of PJ. And that was the SUM known to the general public.


Look, I can understand your desire to create a false equivalence between the two, to rationalize the fact that both you and so many you know cast votes for the grotesquery Trump.

However, the equivalence is false. Sorry.

 

I vote none of the above.

I wasn’t particularly thinking of Clinton‘s comments. Rather, I was thinking of Democrats in general and especially the comments from people here. How many people on too hot who use “deplorable” to describe Trump voters, apply the qualification that Clinton did?

How many people on too hot abide by this thinking:

She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.” “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.

I see no attempt by most liberals, progressives, or Democrats on TH to try to understand Trump voters. It’s just universal condemnation with some serious name calling.

 

Aha. Moving the goal posts. No one said there was an equivalence. I actually said the opposite.

ALL I said was people view them all as cheating lowlifes and vote on issues (party lines) and ignore the personal faults.

That has been my very clearly articulated point.

You drug us into some semantically irrelevant point on numbers.

Most voters knew or at least assumed Clinton was a dirtbag of a husband (multiple times over). It was public long before 1996. They voted for him. Not because they liked his personal character.
They liked his policy.

 

No, in 1996 not really. They knew he'd had an affair, which sadly is similar to about half the US married population, I believe.

They also knew a single woman accused him of misdeeds.

So to drag you back to my original point: in 1996 Clinton was NOT credibly considered a "serial adulterer."

Conversation should end there. With the facts. Why you're insistent on continuing this is baffling. Guilt over having knowingly voted for a clearly probable sex offender? Covering for so many in your circle who continue to do so?

Who knows. Who cares. Why is this conversation continuing? One of us voted for an obvious sex offender. The other for a guy who, as far as anyone then knew, cheated on his spouse.

 

A party that espouses rounding people up in camps is never on the right side of history.

In addition, I think that people that support his “policies” don’t really understand the potential impacts of those policies, whether it’s tariffs or billionaire tax cuts.

As far as giving them “respect”, are they really? Or do they think their followers are too dumb to understand the ramifications of those policies?

“I love the poorly educated” was not a compliment.

 

As it SHOULD BE!

People willing to vote for a person who enacted a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election deserve no......."understanding." To say nothing of all his other crimes, hate-mongering and grotesquery.

And the understanding is PERFECTLY CLEAR: they're either conned by his lies, or activated by his racist tribalism and afraid of becoming the out group.

It's sad and deplorable. They should be better than to fall for the 100s of years old racist immigration tropes he throws out.

Zero apologies for being unsympathetic to that stuff....which is understood well.

 

I pray they put their money where their mouth is. But you and I know they won't, because deep inside they're just big kittycats.

 

I voted for Clinton twice and actually was fooled into thinking he was a good POTUS, and I have no idea how anyone with a pair of eyes could deny this. In that respect, he and Trump are very similar.

 

Plus there is that false dichotomy they like to push: if you don't support Trump, you are an America hating radical communist. WTF would I want to relate to or understand someone with that mentality? ____ em and the horse they rode in on.

 

Your first paragraph could just as easily be reworded to say “a party that espouses destroying millions of unborn children is never on the right side of history.” I think we would all be surprised how future people will look back on these times.

I think your second paragraph is mostly right for both sides. Most people don’t understand the implications of a party’s policies.

In your third paragraph, are you saying you think Trump supporters are dumb, or are too dumb to know that the politicians don’t respect them? Are you saying Trump supporters are so dumb that they don’t know that the politicians think they’re dumb? It wasn’t clear.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

I disagree on the good POTUS thing. I think, like Trump in his first term, he was lucky to land in a good epoch economically, benefitting primarily from the first tech boom. He also received the benefit of George Bush's tax increase, which the CBO estimates contributed up to 60-70% of his vaunted surplus.

That said, if you're a Reagan fan you should LOVE Clinton as he took Reagan's neoliberal trend and made it concrete. The amount of deregulation his henchmen Rubin and Summers implemented would have made the Reagan team blush and clearly laid the foundation for 2008.

 

How about going full Code Pink and parroting Chomsky on Ukraine? That's how you know the entire movement is an intellectual fraud.

 

Except " that party" does not espouse destroying millions of babies. They just want women to have the right to make a decision. At least TRY to be honest and not put words into other peoples mouths.

 

So genius. What would you do about it (abortion)? Spare me the rhetoric and usual baying at the moon, I want real answers, real policies that can be implemented (by the GOVERNMENT no less) and will work.

Oh, that's right, you're a Pro-Lifer, which means you have no answers whatsoever and have probably never given it two seconds of thought. Yeah, just keep baying at the moon like the rest of your friends. LOL! Trump just gave up on you after using you for three elections and now that it's gone to the states, it looks like it's going to be locked in just about everywhere outside of Alabama and Mississippi.

 

As an aside, that was a favorite expression of a former Secretary of the Treasury, but at this point I don’t remember which one. However, his portrait hanging in the Treasury building shows a book with the title The Horses They Rode In On. He was able to work his expression into his official portrait.

 

There's really no point in attempting a logic based argument with a person who eschews logic in every aspect of life. They have no real position or policy outside of baying at the moon. The fact they see their usual enemy for all things - the government - as the answer to this tells you everything you need to know about them.