If you’re going to use the President’s name as a modifier for a certain type of behavior, you can’t elide the question “what does the President have to do with this behavior”, you have to answer it.
And the answer is really easy and simple: “I’m calling them Trump deplorables, because they’re the very sorts of deplorable people HRC was talking about when she categorized that half of Trump supporters.”
Why Ravenman chose instead to treat the question as unreasonable is beyond me. Maybe the poster enjoys distractions.
I would wonder why the “Chicago Cubs fans” part was relevant to the part where they’re going to prison. And if, in fact, there’d been a history of that organization recruiting or favoring racists, bigots, rowdies and criminals, then you’d have a really easy time answering my question, wouldn’t you?
I would think that the baseball team was drawn into the discussion. Are you genuinely making an argument based on counting words?
The people in the article probably voted for Trump (or would have, assuming they were at liberty to do so). But it’s not mentioned in the article and there doesn’t seem to be a reason to allude to it. So why do it?
xenophon41 has already given possibly the only sensible response to why it was mentioned at all, and we could have proceeded from there. But no, the OP (and you, apparently) have decided to get your dander up about what was a reasonable question for no good reason.
Jeebus Kee-roist, it’s like a guy can’t take a potshot at white nationalist Steve Bannon without confusing the simpletons about whether two sentences were a potshot at Trump. Especially when the words “Steve Bannon” appear right there.
You all know how to read two sentences and string a thought together, right? Are you knuckleheads now going to have a debate about the First Amendment being mentioned in the title, too? “Tsk tsk, this criminal case was about assault with a deadly weapon, not political speech. That Ravenman chap surely made another error, haw-haw!”
Because I think you’re a genuinely perceptive analyst and overall a reliably reasonable Doper with a solid record of contribution to this board, I’m going to try once more.
You’ve called the two idiots who got sentenced this week “Trump Deplorables”. This usage is not difficult to understand. I, and I imagine almost everyone else reading your thread title, got the reference immediately, and also immediately understood that you weren’t trying to shift blame for the incident onto Trump’s shoulders.
Some people, even those asking you about it, were smart enough to “get” the first point, but not the second and therefore wonder quite genuinely why you’re tying the incident to Trump or Trumpism. (Guilt by association is a pretty common way of thinking for conservatives, which may explain the cognitive weakness.) But that question is so trivially dealt with that your resistance to its very validity is a bit mystifying. And your continued need for a step by step explanation of why using a person’s name to describe an occurrence or condition means that you associate them with that thing has become risible.
Feel free to tell me again that I’m thick or contextually challenged and can’t see past two words of your title. I won’t reply.