Yes, Clinton insulted about half of Trump’s supporters. That’s obviously not why they voted the way they did, though, because Trump insulted all of them, far more frequently than Clinton did.
Besides which, if someone described some group that I was a member of, and said that half of them were racist, sexist, or had some other deplorable trait, I wouldn’t say “How dare you call me that!?”. I’d say “Well, I’m in the other half”. The people who were offended by Clinton’s statement weren’t offended at being called racist; they were offended that she was saying that there’s anything wrong with being racist.
From their response, of course. It wasn’t to the words “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it” but to “deplorable”. Even you didn’t know that until just now.
Maybe what we need is a Civility Mod? Wander freely through the fora, scolding and admonishing any lack of genteel civility! Well, that’s settled then, now…nominations?
I quoted the portion of it that I felt illustrated my point that she said “half of Trump’s supporters” are deplorable. The rest of it makes it worse, not better, as I pointed out in post #137.
It was worse than that, actually. I noticed that many Trump supporters just laughed it off. “Go ahead, call me racist - I don’t care. Calling me racist doesn’t work anymore.”
What that really means is, “It’s okay to be a racist now.” Now that a black man has been elected president, people no longer have a right to complain about racism. Because the election of Barack Obama just proves America’s not a racist country. :rolleyes: Or more accurately, the Obama era just gives bigots a reason to validate the fear peddling to the white middle class.
My sense among the Trump side of the electorate was a palpable fear that the country might not be able to elect another white male president (the archetypal American president after all) for the foreseeable future.
That would be a dangerous step for Russia to take, as they are quite vulnerable to their own secessionist movements. But helping a candidate who is destroying faith in our own country’s intelligence apparatus is YUGELY helpful to the likes of Russia and other possible adversaries. Putin’s m.o. is to engender doubt, to use political judo and to use the strengths of an adversary and to turn them into their weakness.
He’s conducting foreign policy via half cocked tweet with a person as deranged and narcissistic as he is. Truly mind boggling that you can still hold on to this idea that Clinton would more likely lead us to nuclear war.
This is why so many conservatives in Alabama are about to vote for a child molester over a Democrat. They’ve been programmed to think of liberals/progressives/Democrats as the worst thing a person can be. There is no possibility of rational discourse with people that actually think you are worse than a child molester.
I’m curious to know: do you have any idea why a conservative might feel that “global nuclear annihilation would have been far likelier under Clinton than Trump”? Reaching back into your memory banks, can you recall anything someone said that might have left people with that impression, or is it really and truly a mystery to you?
Well OK, when we have the camps set up for Muslims and homos…if some Muslims claim religious objection, should they be separate camps? Wouldn’t that mean that Muslims actually have a religion?
Also, “duck season” is ok, so is “rabbit season”, but “hippy season” is right out. Agreed?
Furthermore, are these two phrases synonymous in your mind?
Or do they occupy distinct locations on the spectrum of terrible things that could happen?
Assuming, for a moment, that perhaps they are not synonymous in your vocabulary like they are not in mine, which countries do you think possess the capability of initiating the latter but not the former? Would North Korea perhaps be on that list? And which country/countries have the arsenal necessary to initiate the former?
Because conservative media told them to feel that way?
I’m guessing you are going for the “no fly zone” thing. I know that was hyped to no end by the right wing. I don’t buy that her talking tough about figuring out a way to deal with Syria to help with the refugee problem and instability in the region is worse than two deranged narcissists conducting foreign policy via “I know you are but what am I” type of third grade playground insults. For Christ’s sake he told Tillerson that there was no reason to negotiate with North Korea, that the Secretary of State was wasting time trying to talk to them.
So you were concerned that Clinton’s foreign policy ideas would upset Russia. I didn’t realize that we make our national decisions based on what Russia wants.
I’m saying I think she was much more likely to get us into a big nuclear war with Russia than Trump is, and that the consequences for that are significantly more severe than a war with North Korea with their relatively small and unsophisticated nuclear weapon capabilities.