How the Right Lost Its Mind and Embraced Donald Trump

[SKYDOG]

I agree with the sentiment, but don't see where this applies to Trump. He won by playing identity politics and by demonizing everyone other than his so-called "base." He's not looking out for the average American. (Incidentally, what does the "average American" even look like?)

And he hasn't articulated a clear vision of the future. I'm not sure he's even capable of doing so. For crying out loud, did you read what he had to say about Puerto Rico yesterday? "This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." His buzzwords are "sad" and "fake news" and "very bad."

What is going to get Trump re-elected, if he wins, is the fact that he is brilliantly playing the cultural war, and his "base" lacks the self-awareness to realize they are being played.

We live in a time that whatever political side your on fault will be found. No matter what Trump says he will be criticized by the left. If Puerto Rico was totally put back together today the left news media would be all over Trump complaining why wasn't this done yesterday.

If the new tax bill will save the average middle-class taxpayer $2000 a year, the liberals will be upset because the rich will benefit more. Unfortunately for us all neither side will be able to do anything to benefit the people. Let the obstructionist continue and division gets stronger.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I agree with the sentiment, but don't see where this applies to Trump. He won by playing identity politics and by demonizing everyone other than his so-called "base." He's not looking out for the average American. (Incidentally, what does the "average American" even look like?)

And he hasn't articulated a clear vision of the future. I'm not sure he's even capable of doing so. For crying out loud, did you read what he had to say about Puerto Rico yesterday? "This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." His buzzwords are "sad" and "fake news" and "very bad."

What is going to get Trump re-elected, if he wins, is the fact that he is brilliantly playing the cultural war, and his "base" lacks the self-awareness to realize they are being played.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The Ds created identity politics and it's their go-to move time after time.

You also keep making it sound like people who support Trump are all braindead zombies. Maybe they are sick and tired of the direction the Establishment politicians, D and R, have led our country for the last 30 years. The supposed party of the common man has sold them out repeatedly and has sold itself to the highest bidders. At least the Rs are more honest about it. Neither are particularly good for the working folks.

The braindead zombies are the Progressives, the Antifa thugs, the socialists who lap up the indoctrination the lefty media continually spews out.

 

[SDBoiler1]

if these global elitists already have so much personal power and wealth themselves, it is pretty incredible that they can be convinced to concede any of that to their groups version of the greater good/ greater movement.

You're clueless. They won't and haven't. They will just conjure up another new, more diabolical scheme. Plant the seeds for another World War, perhaps?

 

[Purdue85]

I agree with the sentiment, but don't see where this applies to Trump. He won by playing identity politics and by demonizing everyone other than his so-called "base." He's not looking out for the average American. (Incidentally, what does the "average American" even look like?)

And he hasn't articulated a clear vision of the future. I'm not sure he's even capable of doing so. For crying out loud, did you read what he had to say about Puerto Rico yesterday? "This is an island, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." His buzzwords are "sad" and "fake news" and "very bad."

What is going to get Trump re-elected, if he wins, is the fact that he is brilliantly playing the cultural war, and his "base" lacks the self-awareness to realize they are being played.

Dear lord, dude. I want to be nice, but, are you self-aware?

Hells bells, if the Dems didn't have "identity politics" nor "demonizing everyone other than (their) so-called base," they wouldn't know what to say.

There is no "vision of the future." There's only demonizing the rich, demonizing "wall street" (from which they get big money), demonizing anyone else that will garner votes for their power.

You need to look no farther than Stanley Greenberg's recent analysis (and he SURE as H*LL ain't no right-winger!). "Despite overwhelming evidence that the Democratic base wasn’t consolidated or excited, the campaign believed Trump’s tasteless attacks and Clinton’s identification with every group in the rainbow coalition would produce near universal support." Read the rest of that damning indictment. He even indicts himself, without even realizing it.

That's identity politics on steroids.

She was a walking trope of identity politics. Call it crass if you like, but to this day, she and her rabid, foaming at the mouth supporters think the primary reason for her to be elected is that she has a v*gina. (Consider Michelle Obama's recent moronic remarks.)

In fact, that's all the left sees: Vote for us because you're black and you can't make it on your own. Vote for us because you're gay and people hate you. Vote for us because you're poor and we'll give you stuff.

What's more, the whole "fake news" buzz came from the left, but was quickly taken over by Trump's supporters, which was highly entertaining to watch.

I've got more, but the left still doesn't have a clue why Trump won, and I'm not sure I want to help them get a flippin' clue.

 

[Purdue85]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The Ds created identity politics and it's their go-to move time after time.

You also keep making it sound like people who support Trump are all braindead zombies. Maybe they are sick and tired of the direction the Establishment politicians, D and R, have led our country for the last 30 years. The supposed party of the common man has sold them out repeatedly and has sold itself to the highest bidders. At least the Rs are more honest about it. Neither are particularly good for the working folks.

The braindead zombies are the Progressives, the Antifa thugs, the socialists who lap up the indoctrination the lefty media continually spews out.

You just crushed home run right over the center field fence.

Well done.

 

[TheBoris]

Dear lord, dude. I want to be nice, but, are you self-aware?

Pastor Joe thinks all religions are good folks. Methodist = Moslem = Catholic = Jewish = Hindu. He is brain dead to the threat that radical Islam poses to western civilization. Allah akbar!

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Dear lord, dude. I want to be nice, but, are you self-aware?

Hells bells, if the Dems didn't have "identity politics" nor "demonizing everyone other than (their) so-called base," they wouldn't know what to say.

There is no "vision of the future." There's only demonizing the rich, demonizing "wall street" (from which they get big money), demonizing anyone else that will garner votes for their power.

You need to look no farther than Stanley Greenberg's recent analysis (and he SURE as H*LL ain't no right-winger!). "Despite overwhelming evidence that the Democratic base wasn’t consolidated or excited, the campaign believed Trump’s tasteless attacks and Clinton’s identification with every group in the rainbow coalition would produce near universal support." Read the rest of that damning indictment. He even indicts himself, without even realizing it.

That's identity politics on steroids.

She was a walking trope of identity politics. Call it crass if you like, but to this day, she and her rabid, foaming at the mouth supporters think the primary reason for her to be elected is that she has a v*gina. (Consider Michelle Obama's recent moronic remarks.)

In fact, that's all the left sees: Vote for us because you're black and you can't make it on your own. Vote for us because you're gay and people hate you. Vote for us because you're poor and we'll give you stuff.

What's more, the whole "fake news" buzz came from the left, but was quickly taken over by Trump's supporters, which was highly entertaining to watch.

I've got more, but the left still doesn't have a clue why Trump won, and I'm not sure I want to help them get a flippin' clue.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't disagreeing with you that the Democrats had some of the same problems with identity politics and lacking a clear vision for the future.

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not sure I understand how that can be responsible for Trump's win when he also had those problems. Did he just play the identity politics game better? I'm genuinely curious what you think (hence the reason I'm responding to you rather than to a couple others who came after me.) I mean, couldn't I say that Trump also is all about "demonizing anyone...that will garner votes for their power" and be right? I just don't see how you can say that identity politics is a problem only on one side of the aisle. It's a problem with the entire system, no?

My feelings is that Trump won because he captured the attention of a segment of the population that felt completely ignored by both parties. Some - certainly not all, but just as certainly a significant minority - of which actually are racist morons who think that all of their problems are the fault of black and brown people. The question that historians and political scientists will be studying and writing on for many years is exactly how he managed to do that.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

You just crushed home run right over the center field fence.

Well done.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The Ds created identity politics and it's their go-to move time after time.

You also keep making it sound like people who support Trump are all braindead zombies. Maybe they are sick and tired of the direction the Establishment politicians, D and R, have led our country for the last 30 years. The supposed party of the common man has sold them out repeatedly and has sold itself to the highest bidders. At least the Rs are more honest about it. Neither are particularly good for the working folks.

The braindead zombies are the Progressives, the Antifa thugs, the socialists who lap up the indoctrination the lefty media continually spews out.

Right, so I'm a braindead zombie because I don't think our President should be calling people "sons of bitches," attacking people who disagree with him, and going out of his way to remind us that white supremacists are "really good people?" Is that really where we are as a society?!

There is a way to be populist, anti-establishment and still not act like a deranged schizophrenic off medication. What I oppose is less the ideas (what few concrete ideas he actually has) than the rhetoric and attitude. What I oppose is the inability to articulate a vision and, instead, distracting people from his failure to accomplish anything legislatively by stirring up more "us v. them."

If you can't see that there's a difference, then I can't help you.

Now, off to church, before TheBoris decides to check in on me again...

 

[SDBoiler1]

Right, so I'm a braindead zombie because I don't think our President should be calling people "sons of bitches," attacking people who disagree with him, and going out of his way to remind us that white supremacists are "really good people?" Is that really where we are as a society?!

There is a way to be populist, anti-establishment and still not act like a deranged schizophrenic off medication. What I oppose is less the ideas (what few concrete ideas he actually has) than the rhetoric and attitude. What I oppose is the inability to articulate a vision and, instead, distracting people from his failure to accomplish anything legislatively by stirring up more "us v. them."

If you can't see that there's a difference, then I can't help you.

Now, off to church, before TheBoris decides to check in on me again...

Yes Pastor, "What about the children?"

I guess you're ok with HRC calling 1/2 the US population "deplorable" and "irredeemable". I really believe many of the leaders of the D party feel the same way about Trump supporters. These people still haven't come to terms with why HRC lost and why the "Obama Effect" was an illusion - a cult of personality beginning and ending with him. Loss of the Presidency, loss of the Senate, loss of the House, loss of the Supreme Court, loss of the great majority of governorships, loss of the majority of state legislatures.

And yet the Ds keep trying to use the same old tired playbook.

Basically the atheistic, Marxist-socialist, identity politics of the left has been repudiated by the country.

 

[snowsquirrel11]

You're clueless. They won't and haven't. They will just conjure up another new, more diabolical scheme. Plant the seeds for another World War, perhaps?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Barack Obama is one of the classiest leaders America has ever seen. Failed agenda...ha! Whiny Trumpers strike again.

Apparently, you believed all the lies he told you.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I should have been more clear. I wasn't disagreeing with you that the Democrats had some of the same problems with identity politics and lacking a clear vision for the future.

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not sure I understand how that can be responsible for Trump's win when he also had those problems. Did he just play the identity politics game better? I'm genuinely curious what you think (hence the reason I'm responding to you rather than to a couple others who came after me.) I mean, couldn't I say that Trump also is all about "demonizing anyone...that will garner votes for their power" and be right? I just don't see how you can say that identity politics is a problem only on one side of the aisle. It's a problem with the entire system, no?

My feelings is that Trump won because he captured the attention of a segment of the population that felt completely ignored by both parties. Some - certainly not all, but just as certainly a significant minority - of which actually are racist morons who think that all of their problems are the fault of black and brown people. The question that historians and political scientists will be studying and writing on for many years is exactly how he managed to do that.

That is a figment of the imagination of the MSM and the race card throwing Leftists. You all believe, that if we aren't consumed with white guilt, don't worship at the altar of Political Correctness and don't feel compelled to hyphenate everyone we know, that we must be racist Troglodytes. Perhaps, that's why so many people in the flyover states voted AGAINST Hillary.

You also asked about Trump's vision for the future. Just off the top of my head:
-- Improve the economy, so GDP is rising above 3%/yr (something BO never accomplished)
-- Secure the borders
-- Rebuild the military
-- Peace through strength.
-- Restore respect for the US throughout the world.
-- Fair trade
-- Drain the Swamp - make DC accountable to the people, rather than their own special interests.
-- Repeal/replace Obamacare - Schumer is laughable, as he stands on the deck of the Titanic and refuses to allow any Dems to vote to replace this disaster.
-- Tax reform/simplification - desperately needed.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Just another neo-con Never Trumper pandering to the left, in one of their most biased rags. Charles Sykes is a joke. In his first sentence he calls himself a "major" conservative. LMAO

Charlie Sykes is a conservative. Do some research. If you disagree with his beliefs, you aren't one.

 

[BuilderBob6]

It's not that hard to understand when you consider who is pulling the strings of the neo-cons. The neo-cons are totally in bed with globalist elite/open borders crowd and the regime change is a means to an end.

There's no way that the globalist elite/open borders crowd didn't want the regime change in Syria (hasn't quite worked for them as planned), Iraq, Egypt, Libya - they want mass migration from these countries into Europe. They want mass migration of Mexicans and Central Americans into the USA (and even Canada.)

They want to literally change the physical and cultural complexions of Europe and the USA, because doing this will make them (so the thought process goes), easier to subdue and change for good. (It seems to be working somewhat in Europe, but even these democratic socialists are starting to wake up to what their "leaders" are doing to them and their cultures.) The globalist elite/open borders crowd can't stand strong Western cultures like the USA because they are too free - our Enlightened democratic republic experiment has worked too well and now our people are much too difficult to control. "The Great Work" cannot be completed when Americans are armed, think for themselves, and don't rely on the government for the majority of their well-being.

We are a major fly in the ointment, and the reason (love him or hate him) the globalist elite/left-wing media elite/neo-cons/open borders crowd are doing everything they can to impugn Trump is because he is turning all of their seemingly well-laid plans on their heads with his policies. A strong America is the last thing these people want. They fawned over Obama because he acted like the USA was just another country and he constantly apologized for America's "past sins". There is very little Obama did that was intended to make America better or stronger. Most of what he did was intended to divide the nation, and he was very effective in doing that with the Progressive identity politics (black vs. white, gay vs. straight, male vs. female, Muslim vs. Christian, etc,. etc. When America is at war with itself, as it has been for many years, it is easier to subdue.

Oh my lord.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Yes Pastor, "What about the children?"

I guess you're ok with HRC calling 1/2 the US population "deplorable" and "irredeemable". I really believe many of the leaders of the D party feel the same way about Trump supporters. These people still haven't come to terms with why HRC lost and why the "Obama Effect" was an illusion - a cult of personality beginning and ending with him. Loss of the Presidency, loss of the Senate, loss of the House, loss of the Supreme Court, loss of the great majority of governorships, loss of the majority of state legislatures.

And yet the Ds keep trying to use the same old tired playbook.

Basically the atheistic, Marxist-socialist, identity politics of the left has been repudiated by the country.

Why can't you address anything he said about Trump? Why is it that every reply to criticisms of Trump are an attack on Obama or HC?
I want change like most Americans. I didn't want HC either. But that doesn’t make Trump a great POTUS, it doesn't mean he is the right guy. He told you what you wanted to hear and promised you everything great and you voted for him. How is that different than ANY other politician? His message was what you wanted to hear, but he sold it like EVERY other politician you bitch about......but somehow he is different.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Charlie Sykes is a conservative. Do some research. If you disagree with his beliefs, you aren't one.

No, he's neo-con. If you don't understand the distinction, then you need to do some research.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Why can't you address anything he said about Trump? Why is it that every reply to criticisms of Trump are an attack on Obama or HC?
I want change like most Americans. I didn't want HC either. But that doesn’t make Trump a great POTUS, it doesn't mean he is the right guy. He told you what you wanted to hear and promised you everything great and you voted for him. How is that different than ANY other politician? His message was what you wanted to hear, but he sold it like EVERY other politician you bitch about......but somehow he is different.

Derp, he's not a politician - he is different. The left-wing media whines constantly because he doesn't act like a politician.

He's trying to do what he was elected to do. And unlike the Establishment politicians you seem to adore, he doesn't give up if he faces a set back or two.

 

[BuilderBob6]

No, he's neo-con. If you don't understand the distinction, then you need to do some research.

Lol. Neo conservatism deals with foreign policy, by definition. Conservatism is about a multitude of other things. You can be conservative and not be a neo con. You are to busy reciting your Trump catch phrases to understand what they mean.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Derp, he's not a politician - he is different. The left-wing media whines constantly because he doesn't act like a politician.

He's trying to do what he was elected to do. And unlike the Establishment politicians you seem to adore, he doesn't give up if he faces a set back or two.

Hey slick, you don't know squat about me. You don't know who I adore. Put your hate aside for a minute, stop labeling those who disagree and address what I asked you.

 

[miksta]

I guess you're ok with HRC calling 1/2 the US population "deplorable" and "irredeemable".

Willful ignorance and/or self-righteous fake outrage if you think that's what she said.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Lol. Neo conservatism deals with foreign policy, by definition. Conservatism is about a multitude of other things. You can be conservative and not be a neo con. You are to busy reciting your Trump catch phrases to understand what they mean.

Moronic. Neo-cons do not, by definition, only deal with foreign policy. Neo-cons also are largely pro-free trade (including the NAFTA, TPP (thank goodness it has been killed), and God knows how many other bad deals the USA has signed up to). Neo-cons tend to be in favor of open borders and seemingly unrestrained immigration (illegal and legal). Neo-cons tend to be highly in favor of growth model of Reaganomics in that "deficits don't matter".

Yes, neo-cons certainly are in favor of nation building throughout the world. For instance, they were in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Quaddafi in Libya, taking out Kim Jung Un....

Neo-cons act like they are "principled Republicans", yet their principles have led to little but death in wars, destruction in wars, and hollowing out of the middle class in the USA. For the neo-cons, the only real principle they follow is to stay in control of government and to sell their services to the highest special interest bidders.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Willful ignorance and/or self-righteous fake outrage if you think that's what she said.

Then what exactly did she say? And how exactly did the majority of flyover country take what she said?

She directed her comments at millions of people and showed just how out-of-touch she truly is and was. She was not wise enough to take the advice of her own former President husband and of Joe Biden.

 

[PUBV]

Why can't you address anything he said about Trump? Why is it that every reply to criticisms of Trump are an attack on Obama or HC?
I want change like most Americans. I didn't want HC either. But that doesn’t make Trump a great POTUS, it doesn't mean he is the right guy. He told you what you wanted to hear and promised you everything great and you voted for him. How is that different than ANY other politician? His message was what you wanted to hear, but he sold it like EVERY other politician you bitch about......but somehow he is different.

The unfortunate answer to your 1st question is it’s so much easier to return to the hate loop than move forward
#Sadwaytogothroughlife

 

[SDBoiler1]

The unfortunate answer to your 1st question is it’s so much easier to return to the hate loop than move forward
#Sadwaytogothroughlife

I did address his "questions" but he has ignored my responses because he disagrees with the premise put forth.

Just doing what the Progressives do - label people when you disagree with them.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Moronic. Neo-cons do not, by definition, only deal with foreign policy. Neo-cons also are largely pro-free trade (including the NAFTA, TPP (thank goodness it has been killed), and God knows how many other bad deals the USA has signed up to). Neo-cons tend to be in favor of open borders and seemingly unrestrained immigration (illegal and legal). Neo-cons tend to be highly in favor of growth model of Reaganomics in that "deficits don't matter".

Yes, neo-cons certainly are in favor of nation building throughout the world. For instance, they were in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Quaddafi in Libya, taking out Kim Jung Un....

Neo-cons act like they are "principled Republicans", yet their principles have led to little but death in wars, destruction in wars, and hollowing out of the middle class in the USA. For the neo-cons, the only real principle they follow is to stay in control of government and to sell their services to the highest special interest bidders.

Lol. You people have repeated the same BS for so long you are now redefining what words actually mean. You went for seconds in the kool aid line. The worst part is, you really believe you know what you're talking about. Unfreakinbelieveable. Grow up. Read something besides the Trump manifesto.

 

[miksta]

Then what exactly did she say? And how exactly did the majority of flyover country take what she said?

She directed her comments at millions of people and showed just how out-of-touch she truly is and was. She was not wise enough to take the advice of her own former President husband and of Joe Biden.

Pretty easy to look this up:

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, first, she prefaces by saying it was "grossly generalistic." Then she says "half of Trump's supporters." If you assume she was talking about primary Trump voters, that represents one half of about 20% of the country as a whole. So, about 10% are deplorable if you take her comments to their logical conclusion. An upper bound could be using Trump's approval as proxy, which would be about 20% (using 40% as an average).

So, yes, it's reckless, bombastic, dishonest, and/or duplicitous to claim that she said half of Americans are deplorable (which is exactly what you did).

 

[SDBoiler1]

Lol. You people have repeated the same BS for so long you are now redefining what words actually mean. You went for seconds in the kool aid line. The worst part is, you really believe you know what you're talking about. Unfreakinbelieveable. Grow up. Read something besides the Trump manifesto.

All you've done on here is accuse me of drinking the Trump Kool-Aid. When I bring up legitimate points, you're the one who deflects and refuses to answer.

Admit it, you've got a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I've never said President Trump is a particularly good or great man. He has some real character flaws, but at least he usually says what he means, which actual politicians rarely do anymore. He isn't the President most of America wanted in 2016, but he is the President America needs and deserves right now. He is not a bought and sold politician. He doesn't need to get paid by lobbyists and outside interests.

Think about all of the issues he's raised that have been almost completely ignored by Establishment politicians from both parties for years. He is raising things up that much of half of more of our country think is important.

You seem to think you understand what neo-cons espouse, yet very few people would accept your definition based solely on foreign policy.

Instead of getting emotional from your case of TDS, maybe you need to take a step back and "grow up", Bobbie.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Pretty easy to look this up:

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, first, she prefaces by saying it was "grossly generalistic." Then she says "half of Trump's supporters." If you assume she was talking about primary Trump voters, that represents one half of about 20% of the country as a whole. So, about 10% are deplorable if you take her comments to their logical conclusion. An upper bound could be using Trump's approval as proxy, which would be about 20% (using 40% as an average).

So, yes, it's reckless, bombastic, dishonest, and/or duplicitous to claim that she said half of Americans are deplorable (which is exactly what you did).

No, she shows her utter disdain for people who wouldn't and didn't vote for her. Why in the world would any candidate for President make that comment in the first place? You and I both know why - she was so caught up in identity politics that she actually believes what she was saying. The Progressive way - divide and conquer the American people.

She still can't admit that SHE was the reason she lost. She had low charisma, poor instincts in reading the mood of the country, didn't listen to people like her husband, had morons and toadies for advisors, broke the law with regard to classified emails, had a horrendous track record as SoS.....Yet she blames everyone but herself for her historic loss. She is pathetic.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Pretty easy to look this up:

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, first, she prefaces by saying it was "grossly generalistic." Then she says "half of Trump's supporters." If you assume she was talking about primary Trump voters, that represents one half of about 20% of the country as a whole. So, about 10% are deplorable if you take her comments to their logical conclusion. An upper bound could be using Trump's approval as proxy, which would be about 20% (using 40% as an average).

So, yes, it's reckless, bombastic, dishonest, and/or duplicitous to claim that she said half of Americans are deplorable (which is exactly what you did).

Just own it...she wasn't talking about primary voters. goodness.

pretext
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.

 

[miksta]

Just own it...she wasn't talking about primary voters. goodness.

pretext
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.

Primary voters were my lower bound. I included an upper bound for sticklers such as yourself.

There is no plausible way one can claim, as SD did, that Hillary said "1/2 of US population" was deplorable or irredeemable.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Primary voters were my lower bound. I included an upper bound for sticklers such as yourself.

There is no plausible way one can claim, as SD did, that Hillary said "1/2 of US population" was deplorable or irredeemable.

It was a ridiculous and out of touch comment by an out of touch person. Right up there with Romney. Facepalm moments.

 

[miksta]

It was a ridiculous and out of touch comment by an out of touch person. Right up there with Romney. Facepalm moments.

Agreed. Because it let people misquote her and claim she said all Trump supporters were deplorable...even though she didn't say that.

She certainly wasn't the best campaigner, that's for damn sure. It's a shame being a good campaigner has nothing to do with competence, however.

 

[TheBoris]

Hillary actually said that half of Trunp's supporters were "...a basket of deplorables..."

 

[BoilerMadness]

Agreed. Because it let people misquote her and claim she said all Trump supporters were deplorable...even though she didn't say that.

She certainly wasn't the best campaigner, that's for damn sure. It's a shame being a good campaigner has nothing to do with competence, however.

Where has HRC ever shown competence at anything, but breaking laws and evading the consequences of her actions?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Hey slick, you don't know squat about me. You don't know who I adore. Put your hate aside for a minute, stop labeling those who disagree and address what I asked you.

Why is this the Left's fallback position? You can't win an argument based on merit, so you try to diminish your opponent by introducing words like "hate", "racist", "sexist", etc.? SD and I have had disagreements in the past, but I didn't see any "hate" in his post. That concept was purely yours. You introduced it from the ether and it has no basis in fact. Why the need to stoop so low?

Of course, PUBV had to chime in, in the same vein:

"The unfortunate answer to your 1st question is it’s so much easier to return to the hate loop than move forward."

 

[miksta]

Where has HRC ever shown competence at anything, but breaking laws and evading the consequences of her actions?

She has a long and decorated career in public service. You'd understand that if you hadn't been gulping that right wing propaganda/bullshit that's been rabidly focused on her since 1993.

 

[SDBoiler1]

She has a long and decorated career in public service. You'd understand that if you hadn't been gulping that right wing propaganda/bullshit that's been rabidly focused on her since 1993.

Her run as SoS was an unmitigated disaster. As a carpetbagger Senator from NY, she did almost nothing. Long and decorated career of public service - LOL. How about a long and decorated career of self-serving?

 

[tjreese]

She has a long and decorated career in public service. You'd understand that if you hadn't been gulping that right wing propaganda/bullshit that's been rabidly focused on her since 1993.

I think you inadvertently hit upon a huge problem without a real answer. How can people like you hold your view of Hillary and others hold a view the complete opposite? Hillary is Hillary and so how does different groups come to different opinions which I hope are based upon thought, rather than feelings? Essentially, how do people put their pieces together to form an opinion? All this is rhetorical, but truly hits at how different people arrive to different conclusions. Even in a basketball game, there will be a whole host of opinions about what each “thought” or “felt” they saw and we know truth doesn’t have that many faces…

 

[miksta]

Her run as SoS was an unmitigated disaster. As a carpetbagger Senator from NY, she did almost nothing. Long and decorated career of public service - LOL. How about a long and decorated career of self-serving?

A carpetbagger *in* NY? lol A for effort.

Her approval ratings were pretty damn good, so perhaps her constituents had a better idea about this than you do?

 

[SDBoiler1]

A carpetbagger *in* NY? lol A for effort.

Her approval ratings were pretty damn good, so perhaps her constituents had a better idea about this than you do?

What state did Bill Clinton run as Governor? It sure as hell wasn't NY. Why didn't she run for Senator from Arkansas?

She took residence outside NYC out of convenience and political expedience.