In a Basket of Deplorables

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I am serious. I have seen some - not all - of his statements on the birther issue. Thus far, I have seen him say he wants Obama to produce a birth certificate to put the matter to rest, and I have heard him say he didn't know where Obama was born. I have not heard him directly say Obama was not born in the US. If he did, please show me. If you can't show me, be honest enough to say so.

Are your videos saying they have enough to prosecute?

Comey indicated as much. From your own source:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest in Bill Clinton meeting with Lynch days before the report?

But, jeeze Redneck - she said only half

Yes, awfully magnanimous of her. I suppose she only needs half of his support.



TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

I guess you got me. You dug into my head, found the truth, and displayed it for the world to see.

Not.

At least now I know how you can support Clinton's statement... just make it up as you go and change subjects when it feels right. Who needs to actually read what was said?

Thanks for the lesson.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mahatche

I oppose opening libel laws to any extent that infringes upon freedom of the press or freedom of speech. If malicious slander can be proven, i.e. statements presented by a news outlet as news that are known to be false and presented in order to do harm, I see no problem with that. I do not believe freedom of the press includes freedom to slander.

I do not believe such a move would be of great benefit to anyone in particular. Such a burden of proof would be very difficult to prevail under. It might cause some in the MSM to more carefully vet their sources. It would make no difference so far as individuals go. There are already laws against slander and libel if one is not in the MSM.

I take his statement about China as an explanation of why he thinks the Chinese government did what they did, not as an indication he would try to do something similar.

TheRedneck

You are right, libel laws as they are now is fine. Problem is I've had to watch Trump come after comedians and journalists I follow for years. Calling Trump's biological father an orangutan as part of a birther joke shouldn't land you in court. Trump is complaining that libel laws as they exist now don't go far enough. Meaning that with all the money in the world, and the best lawyers money can buy he still can't do enough to prove libel. I need to know how far those changes would go, because he's running for the most criticized job on earth; his history of extremely thin skin doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his desire to open up libel to include more than it already does. He announced it as a campaign promise.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Who needs to actually read what was said?

This from the person who said that what was said is not what was meant.

Also, saying that you are exaggerating really doesn't have anything to do with supporting or not supporting Clinton's statement.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mahatche

I oppose opening libel laws to any extent that infringes upon freedom of the press or freedom of speech. If malicious slander can be proven, i.e. statements presented by a news outlet as news that are known to be false and presented in order to do harm, I see no problem with that. I do not believe freedom of the press includes freedom to slander.

I do not believe such a move would be of great benefit to anyone in particular. Such a burden of proof would be very difficult to prevail under. It might cause some in the MSM to more carefully vet their sources. It would make no difference so far as individuals go. There are already laws against slander and libel if one is not in the MSM.

I take his statement about China as an explanation of why he thinks the Chinese government did what they did, not as an indication he would try to do something similar.

TheRedneck

You are right, libel laws as they are now is fine. Problem is I've had to watch Trump come after comedians and journalists I follow for years. Calling Trump's biological father an orangutan as part of a birther joke shouldn't land you in court. Trump is complaining that libel laws as they exist now don't go far enough. Meaning that with all the money in the world, and the best lawyers money can buy he still can't do enough to prove libel. I need to know how far those changes would go, because he's running for the most criticized job on earth; his history of extremely thin skin doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his desire to open up libel to include more than it already does. He announced it as a f'n campaign promise.

Why is he "thin skinned?"

Is it because he hits ya right back?

The thing about Comey is that he said "no reasonable prosecutor" would take his findings to court, so he dropped it.

That was not his call to make. Let the DOJ drop the case.

And hillary said she was sorry she said "half", I wonder if she implied she should have said "all".

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: mahatche
A couple questions for the people who see Hillary's open contempt for a demographic of voters as an assault on free speech.

Not an assault on free speech per se, it's a statement that I don't see manifest itself in the real world. No where near 50% of Trump supporters are what Clinton claims. She's free to say it, it's just a blatant LIE. A LIE designed to paint anyone not pro Hillary as whatever vile negative sterotype her and her supporters deem fit. She Did it to a lesser exent to Sanders supporters during the primary and cast her aspersions even wider with Trump Supporters.

I agree Hillary is a lying snake, it's not 50% but she did call it a gross generalization. She is completely correct to say a chunk of Trump supporters are those things. They are. I exist within the anti-pc parts of the internet, I see a lot of Trump supporters say they are not PC, then follow it up with a rant that even I would consider everything she listed. I'm anti-PC but I'm also anti-racist, msyognyist, etc...Some people are those things. Hillary's problem is that she takes it to far, she did it with the whole Bernie bro narrative as well. Obama was also called sexist. She will play every card, but so does trump.

Maybe I'm weird, but I hate to see politics devolve into weirder side of 4chan.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy


Why is he "thin skinned?"

Is it because he hits ya right back?

The thing about Comey is that he said "no reasonable prosecutor" would take his findings to court, so he dropped it.

That was not his call to make. Let the DOJ drop the case.

And hillary said she was sorry she said "half", I wonder if she implied she should have said "all".

Taking someone to court for words they said that you didn't like isn't hitting back, it silencing speech. A judge throwing out a ridiculous case does nothing to diminish the fact that Trump has thin skin. His standard of things he's willing to waste time on, is considered ridiculous by judges. Trump said he'd like to open up laws. Maybe I'm crazy, but doing that, seems to be a response to his ridiculous cases being dismissed. Not getting his way is why he wants to open them up.

Do you follow him on social media by any chance? He took time out of his day to "hit back" at people calling him f***face Von Clownstick. Please don't tell me he's not thin skin. His anti-PC comes from narcissism and a lack of empathy, it's not based in principles of speech.

a reply to: mahatche

There is that one loophole where the media can pretty much get away with anything, but that's a very fine line. Otherwise I agree the libel laws work.

The President does not make law. He can suggest law, and he can make some policy, but his job is to enforce existing law, control the military, protect borders, handle foreign relations, etc. Congress makes law. That line has blurred with the last few administrations thanks to increasing use of Executive Orders, but that's not on Trump; it's on Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter... despite this, I don't see him as able to make sweeping changes to the libel laws.

I honestly believe Trump will cause the country a great deal of pain if elected. But as another poster said, sometimes you have to tear corrupt systems down to rebuilt better. Our entire system of government is corrupt and out of control, complicent with the media and the financial institutions. All three of these groups are vehemently screaming at the very prospect of a Trump Presidency. That's a pretty good reason for me to vote for him, even if I disagree with some of his policies. If he can get the PC nonsense, corruption, and ridiculous financial mis-management even partially under control, I will be happy with my choice.

My arguments here over his statements are not blanket support, but belief that there is no depth to which some will not stoop, even to outright lying and purposeful misinterpretation, to sway people toward the most dishonest, corrupt, despicable person ever to enter politics. Unlike them, I will not support policies simply because he said to. I judge each policy on the potential merits.

If he is elected and fails to fulfill the goals I elected him to fulfill, or if he tries to institute bad policy, I will be back here blasting him as well. At least if that happens, I won't be called a racist for doing so.

Well, hopefully. Is orange a protected race?

TheRedneck

a reply to: mahatche

Oh, well then I guess when Romney made his 47% remark, it would also be fair to say that there was a chunk of Obama's supporters who fit that definition, but he just went too far.

Either way, we can see where that remark got him, and if we are being honest, it's the same place it should get her - negative movement in the polls.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You forgot the academic and scientific institutions.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: mahatche
A couple questions for the people who see Hillary's open contempt for a demographic of voters as an assault on free speech.

Not an assault on free speech per se, it's a statement that I don't see manifest itself in the real world. No where near 50% of Trump supporters are what Clinton claims. She's free to say it, it's just a blatant LIE. A LIE designed to paint anyone not pro Hillary as whatever vile negative sterotype her and her supporters deem fit. She Did it to a lesser exent to Sanders supporters during the primary and cast her aspersions even wider with Trump Supporters.

I agree Hillary is a lying snake, it's not 50% but she did call it a gross generalization. She is completely correct to say a chunk of Trump supporters are those things. They are. I exist within the anti-pc parts of the internet, I see a lot of Trump supporters say they are not PC, then follow it up with a rant that even I would consider everything she listed. I'm anti-PC but I'm also anti-racist, msyognyist, etc...Some people are those things. Hillary's problem is that she takes it to far, she did it with the whole Bernie bro narrative as well. Obama was also called sexist. She will play every card, but so does trump.

Maybe I'm weird, but I hate to see politics devolve into weirder side of 4chan.

Sure Trump has some wackos voting for him, they are not a huge percentage as Clinton implies. It's a made up number to make people fearful of Trump and to dehumanize his supporters.

From what I see, it's a stategy that is backfiring on Clinton and she and more importantly, her supporters are doubling down on. It's an extremely rare day that I meet a Clinton supporter who doesn't within two minutes of meeting them, that they don't start the name calling of Trump supporters. It's like clockwork, they have been conditioned like Pavlov's dog to spout "How can anyone vote for that ( insert deragotory term) Trump. If you support him you must be one too". when they say that I counter with "How can you support a liar like Clinton, obviously you must be a liar if you support her" Most of the time Clinton supporters need to be called out on for trying to do such a blanket smear job.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't see the level of corruption there that I do in the financial and media sectors. Granted some does exist, but in my experience it is relatively minor.

I will admit my knowledge of the fields, despite having depth, does not have a lot of width. I work with NASA as an intern while pursuing my Masters degree at UAH. I can only speak accurately toward them. Other institutions may be different.

Academia is inherently liberal in their political views, but they also are responsive to social pressure, such as the pressure to be politically correct. That does not match well with the purpose of education, so we have some conflicts that are easily reported. Fixing the PC issue would correct much of the problems with academia. Removing the Department of Education would do much to correct lower level academia.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

To me it seems that just about anything government touches is infected to some degree by its corrupt nature mainly because those who were supposed to control the purse strings have opened up the fonts of "free" money and it gets used for its influence with every entity at every level it touches.

I guess then government is too big with too much access to ready wealth to distribute as it sees fit.

Here is a great example of Clinton supporters doing what I say.

Them: It's sad to see how many bigots and haters we have in this country shame on you for supporting this pig


Me: You'll show those evil Trump Supporters that its wrong to call groups of people generalities and names by using Generalities and name calling.

Them:Wait a minute calling a bigot is not name calling it is just pointing out the truth..Now if we called him and ass wipe bigot that would be name calling..And I will stick with asswipe bigot and throw in a racist POS.
And really when you candidate calls names and does attacks on entire groups and your base is so very fond of calling names , you really should not be ragging when people call them right back.
Next Time one of you calls Hillary Crooked Hillary, I would so enjoy watching you speak up about that..OH yeah that kind of name calling in fine..LOL

Me: It most certainly is when not everyone you are calling a bigot is.......

Them: face it your for a insulting bigot... how can you explain this, unless you aren't one to

Them:some may not even realize it....because of conditioning

Them:We are paying attention to what is going on, and we know exactly why they support Trump.

Another Clinton supporter: Right, he belittles everyone that's normal and acceptable to these deplorables.

Another Clinton Supporter :No excuses acceptable, a vote for Trump is application and accepted membership into the basket of deplorables.

This is all in just one single thread and gets repeated in almost every post in a Facebook group I'm in. I can rarely even debate a topic before serious hate and drivel like this is the only thing coming out of their mouths.

The silver lining in all of this is it's backfiring on Clinton hard.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am serious. I have seen some - not all - of his statements on the birther issue. Thus far, I have seen him say he wants Obama to produce a birth certificate to put the matter to rest, and I have heard him say he didn't know where Obama was born. I have not heard him directly say Obama was not born in the US. If he did, please show me. If you can't show me, be honest enough to say so.

He's been beating that drum for years. Do you honestly want us to believe that it was just an innocent question all along?

Yeah that Trump - what an imp

Sorry. I can't take you or anyone that now wants this whole birther thing to magically disappear as if it wasn't real and didn't look so unintelligent - seriously

Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest in Bill Clinton meeting with Lynch days before the report?

I honestly do see it. At the time, I distinctly remember shouting WTF Bill?! at my television. Bill Clinton has a way with making awkward situations happen - no doubt about it

I still have to ask - if he was going to work his super special magic voodoo on Lynch - does it matter why or how or where he met her?

:-)

What power does he have over Lynch that he can just show up for a chat on a plane and make all his problems go away?

What do you figure?

Yes, awfully magnanimous of her. I suppose she only needs half of his support.

Yes! Yes - Redneck - that is it exactly. Think about it - it's very obvious what she was saying

What she said should bother you. It should bother you a lot

a reply to: ketsuko

That's the root of the corruption. Everyone needs money to survive, and when a single source controls the percentage of available moneys, that source becomes in effect a dictatorship. I have never heard of a dictatorship in the history of mankind that was not corrupt.

We need smaller government across the board. Not smaller in some areas - smaller in all areas. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a function of the Federal government should be forbidden to the Federal government. That includes the Department of Education, most of the EPA, most of the Department of Commerce, the ATF, and quite a few others. Military, Border Patrol, and ICE are enumerated and therefore should be a part of the Federal government. Unfortunately, we didn't grow this monstrosity overnight and we can't destroy it overnight. It will take time.

But we have to move in the right direction. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. I see the shakeup that Trump would be as President as akin to throwing the shovel out of the hole.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Good, we're down to two issues that have merit.

I understand the anger over the birthed movement. I too got extremely tired of the constant bickering, and I freely admit that Trump stood firm on demanding proof of Obama's citizenship. He was asking a quesrion... I wouldn't say an innocent question, but a question nonetheless. He never stated that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

To me, that is a substantial point. When did it become wrong somehow to ask a question? Obama did produce what appears to be, and I have no qualms admitting it is, a legitimate birth certificate. If he had done so a year earlier, that would have saved us all the pain of listening to that argument for that year. So why didn't he do so?

That is rhetorical. The fact is, he didn't. That, in my mind, places part of the blame for the issue's longevity on his shoulders. Trump gets the rest, and would get the brunt of the blame if he had made statements instead of asked questions.

I'm relieved we agree the Clinton/Lynch meeting was inappropriate and highly suspicious. I cannot answer your question without resorting to pure speculation, however. I wasn't there. I do know that someone with a family history of lying and manipulation (admittedly most centered around Hillary) met with the Director of the DoJ days before the results of Hillary's investigation clandestinely and the results of that investigation were to not recommend pursuit of charges, while simultaneously stating that anyone else would receive a different recommendation.

Regardless of whether they talked about hit men from Iran or how nice the weather was, that is not a situation that gives me confidence in the integrity of that Clinton family. I suspect, reasonably in my opinion, that there was some sort of collusion taking place.

TheRedneck

ETA: re your last statement... interesting...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good, we're down to two issues that have merit.

I disagree

The birther thing was not innocent - and it was unintelligent. Unless it was only used as a tool to discredit Obama. In that way it worked. Some people are willing to believe what makes them feel good, and memes work like a charm sometimes

You asked me about Trump and speciousness. You didn't reply to my question directly - and you approach these questions the same way Trump does. That wasn't an insult - it's an observation

No merit - I'm not about to entertain the birthers. It's insulting to your intelligence as much as it is to mine. See it or don't - that's up to you

Regardless of whether they talked about hit men from Iran or how nice the weather was, that is not a situation that gives me confidence in the integrity of that Clinton family. I suspect, reasonably in my opinion, that there was some sort of collusion taking place.

Yes - we can all speculate. Trump has some questionable connections to Putin. Nothing we can prove?

Beyond that - it doesn't seem that you have an answer to my question: How would this work? How could Clinton meeting with Lynch possibly work out for Hillary?

I know you can't know - but it's what you're willing to believe that interests me

I have zero interest in trying to get you to vote for her. As I said earlier - she called half of Trumps supporters deplorable. As I also mentioned - that is a point of view. Seems to really bother the very same people that claim that calling it like it is is what it's all about these days

How funny is that? I guess it's because the only people that can actually be insulted are part of Trumps crew

Anyone who is defending Clinton's 'deplorable' comment is a willing accomplice to social balkanization or just a useful idiot.

Of course they will deny they are, but willing accomplices and useful idiots will always deny that.

So which basket are you in, folks? Willing Accomplice or Useful Idiot?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Anyone who is defending Clinton's 'deplorable' comment is a willing accomplice to social balkanization or just a useful idiot.

Of course they will deny they are, but willing accomplices and useful idiots will always deny that.
So which basket are you in, folks? Willing Accomplice or Useful Idiot?

Balkanization?

You're either with us - one nation under one god - or you are against us?

Give me a freaking break

So transparent - so malicious. So desperate to make yourselves feel OK about this