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...

No, Jim, she did not say all republicans are deplorable. You are generalizing and resorting to hyperbole, something you get on us liberals for all the time.

She was referring to the Trump supporters who were homophobic, xenophobic etc… That is not calling all republicans and certainly not specifically McCain and Romney deplorable. I think the folks that fall into those racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic are deplorable. On that I’d agree with her.

Listen, she wasn’t my first second or fifth choice for 2016, but I think she was a better choice than the jackass we have now. This isn’t a defense of a comment that probably could have been more tactful and less derisive, but don’t generalize to try and fit your agenda. I would also love to see Pelosi go, she isn’t the leadership I want in the current democratic party.


Quote (from politifact, I added bold),
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. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Ok, so she called half of trump supporters ( tens of millions of people), the most disgusting things possible. You want to defend that, pretend it was something other than what it was, knock yourself out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not defending anything Jim, but context and full quotes matter (god I sound like Spence, ugh).

Yes, she called the half of Trump supporters who are racist, sexist, homophobic etc.. deplorable. If someone is a racist, sexist and homophobe, I agree, they are probably a deplorable human being...

Maybe it is only 25% of the trump supporters, that fit that bill..... :smash:

Before trump, influential conservatives wanted to talk about the merits of the issues, liberals just want to demonize.

Example- I’m pro life. And I follow politics, and I follow the news. When I hear influential liberals talking about those who are pro life, I hear us described as anti choice, sexist, opposed to women’s health. You know what I have never heard, not once? The truth. I have never heard an influential liberal say, “ you know what? Pro life people base their position on empathy. I think it’s misguided empathy, but it’s based on empathy nonetheless.” I will never hear that, because it’s more politically effective to call he mysogynist like Hilary did.

Trump plays their dirty game, no question. He beats them at it, in fact.

But he didn’t come out of nowhere. He was the conservative answer to the dirty tactics the liberals and the media used against McCain ( the racist) and Romney ( the heartless plutocrat).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As she said the following day
"Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his ‘Mexican heritage,’ bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are ‘stronger together.’ "

Of course when you are at the Trump Gloryhole, just be happy and don't look behind the curtain.

A self-serving apology, suggested by her campaign staff when people were justifiably offended by her insane remarks. Not impressed. I am certain she knew exactly what she was saying (like Obama's bitter clinger remarks), and equally certain she meant it.

I despise Trump, hate his behavior. I know exactly what's behind the curtain, I know how vindictive and self absorbed he is. I call out ugliness on both sides.

Integrity was not on the ballot in 2016, not anywhere.

Just curious how hard you type when you write this stuff.

Did she say all Repubs. where deplorable? And didn't Clinton apologize the very next day? You use that tired old insult repeatedly bc there are so few to use - Whatever.

If that’s the best response you have, we know I’ve won. And the answer is not hard at all. You are confusing being right, with being angry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said half - tens of millions of people.

Yes she apologized. I was deeply moved, almost brought to tears. Nothing looks more like a sincere apology, than a politician apologizing for a scripted remark that the polls show bombers. It just reeks of sincerity and authenticity.

So few insults to use against her? I’d get carpel tunnel syndrome before I scratched the surface.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's have a little contest. I'll donate a $1 for every insult Clinton made and you donate $.25 for every insult Trump made and we'll net the 2 and the proceeds can be donated to charity.

Here’s a start
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...r-insults.html
Then you can go to his public appearances
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

Not sure he can afford it even with his bigger paycheck.

Should read he comments above again, ignore for a moment exactly how big the deplorable bucket is and Clinton was exactly right.

In retrospect, she prob. was not called it at all given how upset the Repubs are its use.

A lot.

How many times was Ben Carson called the n-word at democrat rallies? Probably a lot.

I'm talking about the behavior of people ta the top. And group with tens of millions of people in it, is going to have bad people. That says nothing about the group, unless the group is provoking the bad behavior.

Trump does some of that, I would bet he's responsible for some barroom brawls. Al Sharptons words have put multiple innocent bystanders in the grave, and the left gives him his own TV show.

People see it, Paul. It's why Trump got elected, and it's why under obama's watch the democrats took an historic drubbing at all levels, it's exactly why the GOP controls the oval office, both houses of congress, and a huge majority of state governorships and legislatures. The proof is in the pudding.

The only reason why the left matters right now, is because they control the media and academia, and they were brilliant to seize those institutions. Absolutely brilliant. They may prevail because of it. As of now, they have a long, LONG way to go.

Republicans want to talk about the merits of their ideas, because they are confident their ideas are the right ideas. Democrats want to call us all racist, that's their go-to response. It's the last play of the desperate.

I don't doubt I'd lose that bet between those two.

But if you extended that bet to cover all politicians, all influential talking heads in the media, and college campuses? I'd be a trillionaire.

Paul, when Bush destroyed the democrats by implementing the Surge (which the Dems opposed, and which worked amazingly well, which made them look like idiots), that's when the democrats stopped talking like adults, and started hitting below the belt. It started with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and continued through the 2008 and 2012 elections.

The Democrats are very good at slinging mud and at yellow journalism, it propelled them to victory in 08 and 12. So it's no surprise that the GOP found someone who is quite at home fighting dirty, and who is what better at it than they are.

He is beating them, clobbering them, at their own game. And they are going berserk, because they have nothing left. If Trump woke up and said "two plus two is four", the entire media would say "the hell it is!!" That's how crazy they are.

The results speak for themselves, in terms of political victories and TV ratings. Couldn't be more clear.

Look at what liberalism has done to our state's economy. And the democrats want to raise taxes and spend more. Even in CT, people are waking up. The democrats lead in the house has decreased from 60+ seats to 7, and the senate is tied, and Malloy is a national laughingstock.

Compare that to Nashville and the Carolinas, where they literally cannot build $450,000 houses fast enough. People see it.

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I would lay money it happened many times at rallies during the primaries.

If you want to target the worst 1% or 2%, sure. Half? Nope.

Again, take the abortion issue. It's a whole lot easier to paint me as anti-woman, or anti-choice (which is beyond absurd), than it is to look at a hi-def ultrasound, and tell me that I'm not looking ta a human being.

When you are wrong on the facts and you know it, you avoid the truth like the plague, and sling mud.

The conservative platform:
life is precious

individual freedom is sacred

individuals are almost always responsible for their actions

charity for neighbors in need

strong national defense

support the free market, and the economic upward mobility it provides, which is a gift from God

fiscal responsibility

limited government, protection of individual rights

You can't make that wrong, you just can't. So you demonize it, again and again and again, until people assume it's true, but no one can explain why. If you ask why it's evil to believe these things, the answer you get is "because shut up!"