In a Basket of Deplorables

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I am honestly confused about your comments on the birther issue. I would consider it as a method to discredit Obama to be more troubling than it being a legitimate concern about eligibility. The Constitution itself declares natural born citizenship is a prerequisite for the office. Is that not then something that should be quickly resolved?

If someone questioned Trump's legal requirements for the Presidency, I would expect him to resolve the issue quickly or face the same kind of backlash that followed Obama. The same with Hillary, Johnson, Stein. I will admit that one factor contributing to the concern over Obama was his last name, which I consider spurious and degrading. I do not know if Trump thought on that level; I hope not.

If I have not answered any question you have on my opinions in this area, please re-phrase it. I am not trying to avoid any questions.

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

Prefaced by the fact that everything from henceforth is pure speculation and has no concrete basis:

I think it is entirely possible and probable that Clinton offered Lynch a substantial bribe for dropping the case. I also believe Lynch ordered Comey to make his recommendation. She may not have direct hire/fire power over him, but his position is inferior to hers and she can make life very difficult for him. I believe his statement concerning others with similar evidence was his way of exonerating his actions in his own conscience.

The Clinton family is probably wealthier than the Trump family. They have used the Clinton Foundation for years as a money laundering operation to enhance their own finances. I'm sure Trump has done something similar, just not to the degree the Clintons have. While some money does go to charities, it is not as much as was supposed to go to charities. This discrepancy is not even necessarily provable through an audit, either. Money can disappear before it hits the books.

The point of this is that money is the tool of choice for the Clintons. That, combined with a good prior professional relationship between Bill Clinton and Lynch, is why I suspect a bribe.

Again, none of this is proven. You asked for what I personally believe is likely in the face of what little evidence there is.

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

No, it's because of a pattern we have seen happen before with similar terms. Once one commits an act once, one is reasonably assumed to be capable and willing to commit the same act again. This more so when the act has been committed multiple times.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Once one commits an act once, one is reasonably assumed to be capable and willing to commit the same act again. This more so when the act has been committed multiple times.

True enough

When you have your wall, and your mass deportations, your religious tests and your neighbor on neighbor on neighbor surveillance system...your one nation under one god, I hope you'll remember what it is you said here today

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

When you have your wall, and your mass deportations, your religious tests and your neighbor on neighbor on neighbor surveillance system...your one nation under one god, I hope you'll remember what it is you said here today

I had hoped we were past the generalizations.

One thing jumped out at me: is that your big concern? Religious persecution? Surveillance? I have yet to see anything that I personally took as representative of an intent to institute either, and I would vehemently oppose either.

I do support the concept of the wall, if only as an overreaction to an almost nonexistent border policy. We cannot support the entire population of Mexico; we can't even support ourself right now. I would advocate annexing Mexico before I would accept the present border situation... at least the illegal aliens would be citizens and subject to US jurisdiction.

But the other two? Never!

TheRedneck

What is of greatest concern to me in all this, at least this morning, is that I agree with Milo Yiannopoulos on something: we are now a "post-fact" culture. It no longer matters what the truth is, what concrete evidence clearly shows, the only issue at hand is how convincing a given statement is ... like say, the Clinton's have used their Foundation as a money-laundering scheme.

Or, on the other hand, for example, that half of Trump's supporters are deplorable.

Yes, I do think one of the majority party candidates would cause less damage to the US than the other.

But the real damage has already been done.

The truth is boring.

Linky-poo: Bloomberg

a reply to: pavil

People want to be right without sounding negative. I see both Clinton and Trump supporters doing this.

Lots of examples of Trump supporters trying to tell others that what Trump meant wasn't what he said.

a reply to: daskakik

Lots of examples of Trump supporters trying to tell others that what Trump meant wasn't what he said.

It's sad when you have to have someone interpret what another person actually says, even though they speak the same language as you.

a reply to: introvert

Words can have different meanings based on context. Most of the differences in interpretation are the result of trying to match the context to preconceptions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And that swings both ways.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pavil

People want to be right without sounding negative. I see both Clinton and Trump supporters doing this.
.

Boy, I'd hate for Clinton Supporters to sound negative if that's them not trying to sound negative. Jeez.

originally posted by: pavil
Boy, I'd hate for Clinton Supporters to sound negative if that's them not trying to sound negative. Jeez.

If what is them trying not to sound negative?

Both sides take things their candidate has said and tried to tell others that what they have said was just twisted and that what they meant wasn't negative. Honestly, Trump supporters have had to do that a lot more than Hillary supporters.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I had hoped we were past the generalizations.

How was that a generalization?

All of what I wrote is based on things Trump has actually promised or said he would either like to see or wants to accomplish

I have hoped for so many things this past year... This is not a normal election Redneck

What you will accept or won't accept - at this point? A vote for Trump is a vote for the package deal

I would advocate annexing Mexico before I would accept the present border situation... at least the illegal aliens would be citizens and subject to US jurisdiction.

Why not just make them legal now? Less bloodshed - less money - presto magico - done

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

Words can have different meanings based on context. Most of the differences in interpretation are the result of trying to match the context to preconceptions.

TheRedneck

In the case of Trump, I believe the interpretations were a matter of sarcasm and humor.

When we thought Trump was being serious and his presentation was as such, we have had many people have to explain (or excuse) it as us not being able to interpret the humor or sarcasm.

a reply to: daskakik

I didn't understand your first sentence and my whole post was not Dems trying to explain their candidates side, it was them name calling and painting with a broad brush. your topic while a valid one, had no real bearing on what I am showing you.

a reply to: introvert

It's sad when you have to have someone interpret what another person actually says, even though they speak the same language as you.

It's sad that whenever Trump clarifies what he meant, some people nonetheless maintain that their own interpretation and inventions of his intentions and meaning were in fact Trump's.

originally posted by: pavil
I didn't understand your first sentence and my whole post was not Dems trying to explain their candidates side, it was them name calling and painting with a broad brush. your topic while a valid one, had no real bearing on what I am showing you.

I thought you wouldn't. I thought you were talking about Clinton's statement. That would be one person and not a whole group but, you are doing the same thing by painting the Dems with a big ol' brush as well.

a reply to: daskakik

no, I gave you an everyday example of it on a site I'm on. Those are specific examples of numerous Clinton ton supporters, not generic statements

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Why doesn't just say what he means in the first place instead of having to clarify?

Of course, what he does is a tactic. Hook an extreme demographic and then correct yourself to hook moderates.

I think Clinton did the same with her statement. People seeing it as a mistake that is costing her are doing so in their echo chamber.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It's sad when you have to have someone interpret what another person actually says, even though they speak the same language as you.

It's sad that whenever Trump clarifies what he meant, some people nonetheless maintain that their own interpretation and inventions of his intentions and meaning were in fact Trump's.

That may be true in some cases, but what I am referring to is when we take Trump at his word and it requires his campaign, his supporters or Trump himself to interpret his words to mean something other than what he actually said, or that his intent was different than what he implied.

originally posted by: pavil

I wasn't talking about your example. I was talking about why people make excuses for their candidate.

ETA: In your example it's them projecting the negative unto Trump, while making excuses for their candidate because their candidate "isn't negative", they're just misunderstood.

The other side of the coin tosses it in the opposite direction.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
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 gGod - or you are against us?

Fixed that for you. The USA is one nation. No one forces you to say "under God".

Liberals want us fragmented. Easier to pick off lone targets. Hillary herself says we are Stronger Together then turns around and tries to attack people. Hillary is the candidate spouting the "With us or against us message."

YOU GUYS try to shame believers who profess a faith. Truth: Nothing wrong with living a faith so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. There is no right to not be offended.

YOU GUYS tell us that America's history sucks. Truth: America is the most open society on the planet. We has cultures from all over the planet. People from other countries literally kill themselves trying to get in here.

YOU GUYS tell us we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, etc grievance of the moment. Truth: We disagree with your agendas.

YOU GUYS try to put us in 'baskets'. That's already the truth.

We are sick of your agendas. Liberals lie, distort, whine, cry, then lie some more. All the while suffering from incredible projection of their own hate and venom on their rivals. It's gone beyond getting really old.

Liberals already consider us deplorable, and we are sick of it. So now you have Trump on the ballot. Deal with it. Hugs and kisses.

Give me a freaking break

You get so many freaking breaks you don't recognize them anymore. Go over to some third-world hell hole and tell them to give you a break. Please youtube it for the rest of us.

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

About what? More lies and smears from snowflakes and zealots?

Get off your foundation of sand before it sucks you under.

You might also look about removing that 2x4 from your eye, then treating others as you wish to be treated.

Hillary is panicking so she smeared her opponent the only way she knows how, name calling.

You defend her. So my question still stands: Are you a willing accomplice of social balkanization, or a useful idiot?