:humpty:

this is context that you cut and pasted from NPR...good grief...that's hardly an unbiased source for context :huh:....Spence would label that VERY questionable if the other ox was being gored

I'm well aware of what she said, she wasn't defending MS-13 and Trump's accusation she's an MS-13 lover is just more absurdity.

the democraps took trumps statement and used it to attack him claiming he was talking about all immigrants which he clearly was not...trump took the democraps attack claiming that they were defending ms-13 which was what trump was talking about to begin with....

fair is fair...:hihi:

She may not have defended them, but she most surely did criticize Trump for calling them animals.

“we’re all God’s children. ... Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”

and just because you believe one sides absurdity doesn't make the other sides less absurd.

Pelosi should be playing balloon tennis on a table at an old folks home

No that's funny. Today's democratic party is founded on the notion that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is a hatemonger of some sort, Recall Hilary's 'deplorables' comment?

I agree that Trump plays this card all the time, but it's the backbone of current liberalism.

I don't think she loves MS-13. She bought into the lie that he used the term "animals" to apply to all immigrants, when obviously he was talking about MS-13. They couldn't let that go, so they claimed he was talking about all immigrants. They lied.

He will club her with this like a baby seal, and he's right to do so. Trump said that MS-13 are animals, and they took that completely out of context (see, this is what it looks like when someone makes that accusation legitimately), trying to make him out to be a racist.

A form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.
Sound like anyone you know and love?

For a few hours after Trump made the comment, the liberal narrative was that he was referring to all immigrants as "animals". It was a blatant lie, it was obvious he was talking about MS-13, but these kooks are willing to set the truth aside to attack Trump. She may have been assuming that he was talking about all immigrants, but she criticized Trump LONG after everyone else conceded that he was talking about MS-13, and she has never bothered to respond to the fact that he was obviously talking about murderers.

She stepped in it, she refused to admit she made a mistake, so she deserves to get clobbered with it.

Sure, that sounds like Trump. He's one guy.

Many elected democrats refer to the pro-life crowd as anti-woman. They refer to those who want to enforce immigration laws, as xenophobes. They refer to Christians as homophobes. They refer to those who are concerned with jihadists as Islamophobes.

This kind of demonization of the other side, is far more common on the left, it's a huge reason Trump got elected, the right wanted someone who would hit back.

By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions? I think the last thing you'd want to do is dehumanize people regardless of their behavior, which is not instinct it is learned.

Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved.

Context, Spence....Context

"By calling them animals doesn't that mean they're not responsible for their actions?"

For Gods sake, you know what he meant. They act in a way that's less than human. That's going too fast for you? You can't keep up with Trump's simple mind now?

"Combine that with Trump's track record of negatively generalizing immigrants and I think her critique is rightly deserved"

we are all shocked that you agree with her. Let's see if the people in Wisconsin and Ohio agree with her, come November. That's what matters.

And you are 100% correct, Trumps use of the word animals to describe MS-13, is exactly in keeping with that definition of the word 'animal'.

Since you have agreed that Trump fits Paxton's description of a Fascist leader, where are we now in Paxton's five stage of Fascism?
Here are the five stages of Fascism
1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
2. Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5. Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule.

Ok.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/u...ry-cities.html

Point????

same as always...democrat=good, republican=bad.

He has no point, all he knows is that if it makes the NYT then it is certainly gospel. Material is running thin when Raider Ron makes the most sense in the forum. If the lefty fruitcakes want to keep fanning the flames then they better plan it for the long haul. They are the folks most responsible for the current bozo in chief and they can't seem to figure that part out obviously. Maggots🐛
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That the whole Trump dialogue is intentionally muddy to serve a purpose of fear and division.

So to you, calling MS-13 animals., is fear-mongering and divisive. Have fun with that.

\

That is a remarkable perception of him. It does explain why you support him, but it is like that ridiculous Laurel/Yanny thing going around the other week.

And when Obama said “republicans gotta stop just hatin’ all the time”, that was intended to bring us together? Same with Hilary’s deplorable comments?

Give it a rest. Give the hypocrisy a rest why dontcha??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you call when you compare one statement that a Dem. made with 0,000s of statements Trump made and consider them equal?

speaking of hypocrisy - did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past. I'm assuming you didn't make any statements.

Didn't I pull up a thread when you where blaming the Dems. for the Scalise shooting showing that you and double standard made the exact opposite arguement when Giffords was shot?

If that was the only time that Obama/Clinton demonized Republicans for their beliefs, you'd have a point. It wasn't, so you don't.

Trump is much more overtly vulgar than Obama or Clinton. I don't think he's more divisive. Liberals just didn't see the divisiveness when Obama was POTUS, because they weren't the ones getting demonized.

This is why Trump is POTUS.


"did you comment in the Samantha Bee thread about what a vile word the "C" word is yet you've used that same vile word in the past."

I didn't use it at my job. If I did, I'd expect to be fired. Apples and oranges. I concede that it's a disgusting term. No hypocrisy, zip.

Sure it is hypocrisy. She is a late night comedian. Shouldn't have said it but they want late night comedians to be edgy. You used it so cut the moral outrage.

"THESE ARE President Obama’s last few days in office, and so conservatives are dusting off their favorite critique: Barack Obama has been one of the most divisive presidents in memory.

It’s something you can expect to hear from right-wing media, so today, let’s take a tour through right-wing reasoning.
Obama has divided America, we’re told, by pointing out, after the mass shootings that this country suffers with mind-numbing regularity, that our lax gun laws are part of the problem. (Imagine!) He’s attacked wealthy Americans with incendiary comments such as this one: “The wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share.” Why, he has even demonized corporate jet owners by targeting a tax break they enjoy! (Have you no sense of decency, sir?)
Meanwhile, he’s been utterly reckless on race. One conservative website blasts the president for noting, in his remarks at the July memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, that “if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime.” There is, after all, nothing quite so offensive as saying what’s true.
Granted, Obama usually talked in reasonable tones, but that is part and parcel of what made his divisiveness so insidious. “He spoke softly and antagonized only by innuendo,” one conservative intellectual wrote in the The American Thinker.

Now, a naif might call divisiveness by innuendo oxymoronic. (Or perhaps even pare that adjective down to something less syllabic.) Ah, but even if mostly unspoken — and perhaps even unintentional — Obama’s divisiveness “split the country like an ax of covert bigotry.”

Mind you, there are other kinds of presidential divisiveness that are every bit as troubling — and just as difficult for a nonconservative to spot. It is, for example, extremely alienating if a duly elected Democratic president supports policies conservatives don’t.

No wonder, then, that divisiveness detective Mo Brooks, a Republican US representative from Alabama, has declared Obama the most “racially divisive, economic divisive [sic], president” since those “who supported slavery.” Obama, you see, “really does not try to win elections based on public policies that are based on the best interest of America.” This placid prophet of antipolarization is the same congressman who suggested that Obama should be impeached and imprisoned for his executive actions on immigration.
Other times, Obama is panned for having the temerity to stick to his political priorities in the face of GOP opposition. Thus Obama found a way to “ram through” the Affordable Care Act, though it only had the support of a measly 59 Senators. Similarly, writing in the Sunday New York Times, Eric Cantor, House minority whip during Obama’s first two years, faulted the president for pushing ahead with his economic stimulus plan in the face of Cantor’s objection. The new president, Cantor recalls, said: “Elections have consequences and . . . I won. So I think on that one I trump you.” Why, the established order hasn’t witnessed such brazen solipsism since Napoleon crowned himself emperor rather than letting Pope Pius VII do the honors.

Elephantine observers may recall that some congressional Republicans, Cantor among them, had already decided to slow down Obama’s legislative agenda and deny him meaningful victories. And that the then-minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, declared his single most important goal was to make Obama a one-term president — and engaged in a long, obstructionist effort to that end. But none of that can be called divisive because . . . well, because it would ruin the conservative story line.

When it comes to divisiveness, then, what conservatives have is not a standard but rather a double standard. So here’s the question: After their hair-trigger criticism of Obama, will conservatives call out Donald Trump’s truly polarizing behavior — or suddenly decide that divisiveness no longer matters?"
By Scot Lehigh GLOBE COLUMNIST JANUARY 18, 2017
Actually I think Trumplicans are saying: It's ok, we are getting what we want, just don't look behind the curtain

"calls Dems and the press enemies of the country and scum. Obama or Clinton never used such language - not even close"

Hilary said republicans are deplorable and irredeemable. Look up the definitions of those words. Again, not as vulgar as saying "scum", but of course she's expressing equal loathing for her opponents that Trump does, she's just using more elegant language. I don't give points for masking hate behind elegant language, perhaps you do.

John McCain and Mitt Romney are deplorable and irredeemable? Whatever...