In a Basket of Deplorables

a reply to: mOjOm

But some things in the world you cannot change.

That may be true, but I do not see it a reason not to try.

I cannot believe her innocence as you suggest. Sorry. Clinton has been caught lying so many times, breaking regulations so many times, changing positions for no obvious reason than polls so many times, I do not... I cannot... trust her. I see her words as another attempt to divide, just like all the divisions she, along with practically every other politician in the last half-century (and probably longer), has contributed to. Black against white against Hispanic, Christian against atheist against Muslim, rich against poor, liberal against conservative... and that last one doesn't even have fixed sides; they change constantly.

Why, oh why in the name of everything good and proper, would I suddenly trust her now? After she was caught with illegally-obtained FBI records on her political enemies, was accused of selling National Security secrets to China, tried to disqualify Obama by starting the birther issue, later blaming it on Trump, has had far far too many suicides happen to her acquaintances, colluded to defraud investors, hid classified emails on a private server, destroyed many of those emails, lied to Congress about her emails, failed to take protective actions in Bengazi, lied to the families of dead soldiers about their deaths, has close ties with two KKK members (William Quigg and Robert Byrd) while accusing Trump falsely of not denouncing David Duke, and a lot more I honestly can't remember at the moment? I have watched her since 1991, when she and Bill came into the national spotlight, and I would need a new hard drive to keep up with all her shenanigans.

Why would anyone assume honorable intentions for such a person?

As much as I loathe using the word, Hillary Clinton is the deplorable one in my opinion. Not people who support her opponent. Not even will I use that word to describe her supporters.

I truly believe in my heart that she was attempting to use the word to dehumanize her opponent's supporters. That's what labels do. They have no other purpose. They do not describe others, because they have no fixed definition. They dehumanize others. Attempts to dehumanize me have happened in this very thread; even you have come to the brink of calling me 'deplorable' straight out. Others have passed that point.

I watched this happen with 'racist.' I watched the definition go from someone who fit the dictionary definition to someone who used a word that wasn't a slur in their culture, to someone who didn't hire enough blacks at a business to someone who didn't agree with a black man, to anyone in the South.

I watched it happen with 'sexist.' I watched it happen with 'homophobe.' I watched it happen with ' xenophobe.' I will not watch it happen with 'deplorable.' Maybe you didn't; maybe you are young enough to not have seen the nation before the labeling. I'm not; I remember a time before it was so rampant.

You agree with me that unfounded labeling is bad for society. How then can you not oppose yet another attempt to create more labels? Even if you believe that wasn't her intent, it most decidedly was the result.

TheRedneck

Why can't we all agree that what she said was nonsense? She has no clue about the morals/ideals of Trump supporters because she'd had no contact with them. She's surrounded by adoring dozens. All she knows is what they tell her.
But I'll give her a lot of credit for keeping the divisiveness going hot and heavy. It's like arguing over whether we want to be boiled in oil or burned at the stake.
If either of these maniacs gets to the Oval Office we'll still be in the same mess we're in today---owned by the banksters.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You should ask Trump that same question

Please specify the specious labels used by Trump.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you anything but the freedom to say what you mean to say.

Incorrect. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to state your opinions without fear of government prosecution. A candidate for the office of President, the leader if the branch of government that oversees the FBI, CIA, IRS, NSA, and TSA, has just called a huge segment of the population deplorable. The definition includes the word 'unforgivable.' How exactly is that not an indication that anyone who disagrees with her should concern themselves with governmental prosecution?

It's lucky we're only duking this out with words then - and not guns. Starting to sound a little Wrath of Khanish in here

Seems to me that you think Trump has more rights than Hillary does

If it is starting to sound that way to you, it's because people are tired of being labelled. Look at a little history; continued oppression of a people tends to have very messy consequences. I don't want to see that happen.

And no, if anyone has more rights than another, it's Clinton... like the right to lie under oath without fear of prosecution, the right to appropriate classified information for personal use, the right to ignore Federal Trade regulations, the right to hide official correspondence from the government, and the right to slander people.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I really think you are exaggerating.

Concern yourself all you want but, you can't claim a violation of the 1st until prosecution by government actually takes place.

a reply to: daskakik

And I can't claim a violation of the 1st Amendment after a violation takes place... by definition.

Convenient, isn't it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why not?

I'm pretty sure it has been done before.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Please specify the specious labels used by Trump.

You mean those things that only sound true - but really aren't? Are you actually claiming that everything Trump says is accurate? Like - Obama wasn't born in this country?

A candidate for the office of President, the leader if the branch of government that oversees the FBI, CIA, IRS, NSA, and TSA, has just called a huge segment of the population deplorable. The definition includes the word 'unforgivable.' How exactly is that not an indication that anyone who disagrees with her should concern themselves with governmental prosecution?

Trump was just campaigning in my state:
Trump assured the crowd that he has a plan to defeat the terrorist group but won’t make it public for fear of alerting the enemy.

“I will give you good results,” he said to cheers. “Don’t worry how I get there, OK?”

Trump's Vision: Uniting 'Under One God' Vs. Religious Freedom

DONALD TRUMP: We will be one people under one god...

One people under one god...

Under one god, saluting one American flag, one American flag.

Trump does not seem to me like he would be the kind of president that supports dissenting views. He's running for president. We should just trust him you think?

...it's because people are tired of being labelled.

Do tell

And no, if anyone has more rights than another, it's Clinton... like the right to lie under oath without fear of prosecution, the right to appropriate classified information for personal use, the right to ignore Federal Trade regulations, the right to hide official correspondence from the government, and the right to slander people.

How does she have more rights than anyone else? If she's guilty - who is dropping the ball? Congress? The Senate? The FBI? The CIA? Why is this woman untouchable? They managed to impeach her husband for lying about diddling chicks in the oval office - is Hillary magic?

Right about now your only out is to play the Illuminati card. Go for it Redneck - what have you got to lose besides your credibility?

:-)

a reply to: daskakik



Are you serious?

How can one claim their right to speak is violated if they can't speak?

Wow... just wow... is this country in trouble...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Are you serious?

How can one claim their right to speak is violated if they can't speak?

Wow... just wow... is this country in trouble...

TheRedneck

Filing a claim in writing is the SOP. Yes, people have done so and won so, your country is not in trouble but, if you think the 1st only covers speech then you might be.

originally posted by: subject x
Deplorables never do.
Just as villains don't consider themselves villains. Deplorable actions are always justifiable in the minds of deplorable people.

Not to say I think you're deplorable, mind you. Really.

Not to say you are a deplorable .....but if the shoe fits. You just don't know you are one.

It's shocking how you cannot see how that is so wrong to paint with such a broad brush.

I like to ask people that say that "How many Trump supporters do they know personally "? They might say 20. Then I'll ask "So which 10 of your friends are the white supremecists"?

They then say "Well my friends aren't like that, they're different".

I then say oh, isn't that interesting?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You mean those things that only sound true - but really aren't? Are you actually claiming that everything Trump says is accurate? Like - Obama wasn't born in this country?

I have yet to see where he stated Obama was not born in the US. I have heard him question Obama's birthplace many times. A question is not a statement.

If I am mistaken, please post a link.

Trump does not seem to me to be the kind of president that supports dissenting views. He's running for president. We should just trust him you think?

That's your opinion and your prerogative to have it. Notice no one has called you deplorable for it.

As for my opinion? If you trust Clinton, you must think Trump is more honest than God. I wouldn't put blind trust in him or anyone else in the race though.

How does she have more rights than anyone else? If she's guilty - who is dropping the ball? Congress? The Senate? The FBI? The CIA? Why is this woman untouchable? They managed to impeach her husband for lying about diddling chicks in the oval office - is Hillary magic?

How about the DoJ?





Not magic - just corrupt.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

We were discussing freedom of speech.

I think your train of thought switched tracks between posts.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
We were discussing freedom of speech.

I think your train of thought switched tracks between posts.

I specifically said the 1st and it is there in plain text. Unless you "know" that I meant something else.

A couple questions for the people who see Hillary's open contempt for a demographic of voters as an assault on free speech.

How do you feel about Trump threatening to sue journalists and comedians who joke about him? What about his threat to open up libel laws? Who do you think his change in libel laws would benefit? I think it would mostly be used against people like us. Let's not forget what he said about asking Bill Gates to shut down parts of the internet. He once said the Chinese government would have looked weak if they didn't come down on those college students in Tienanmen Square.

In my mind Trump is one of the biggest threats to speech I've ever seen. His anti-PC is one sided. I'd like the champion of the Anti-PC movement to at least have some principles. He only looks out for his own interests.

a reply to: daskakik

I made that assumption based on the fact that free speech is one of the protections enumerated in the 1st Amendment, and was the subject of your previous posts.

Are we debating or playing dodge ball?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have yet to see where he stated Obama was not born in the US. I have heard him question Obama's birthplace many times. A question is not a statement.

There's no reason to continue if you're not going to take this conversation seriously

Are your videos saying they have enough to prosecute? Do you think that Bill Clinton has enough pull with the DOJ to protect his wife? How does that work exactly? The entire DOJ does the Clinton's bidding?

Is it Santería maybe?

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

source

How does that work do you think - the corruption? Everyone at the FBI was paid off? They were threatened - with their lives? The lives of their babies?! The Clintons are after all known murderers...

I know Redneck - I am hopelessly naive :-)

Sorry - I forgot what we were talking about... Oh, yeah - Hillary called Trump supporters deplorable

But, jeeze Redneck - she said only half

:-)

a reply to: mahatche

I oppose opening libel laws to any extent that infringes upon freedom of the press or freedom of speech. If malicious slander can be proven, i.e. statements presented by a news outlet as news that are known to be false and presented in order to do harm, I see no problem with that. I do not believe freedom of the press includes freedom to slander.

I do not believe such a move would be of great benefit to anyone in particular. Such a burden of proof would be very difficult to prevail under. It might cause some in the MSM to more carefully vet their sources. It would make no difference so far as individuals go. There are already laws against slander and libel if one is not in the MSM.

I take his statement about China as an explanation of why he thinks the Chinese government did what they did, not as an indication he would try to do something similar.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: mahatche
A couple questions for the people who see Hillary's open contempt for a demographic of voters as an assault on free speech.

Not an assault on free speech per se, it's a statement that I don't see manifest itself in the real world. No where near 50% of Trump supporters are what Clinton claims. She's free to say it, it's just a blatant LIE. A LIE designed to paint anyone not pro Hillary as whatever vile negative sterotype her and her supporters deem fit. She Did it to a lesser exent to Sanders supporters during the primary and cast her aspersions even wider with Trump Supporters.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems to be wack the strawman, which you set up when you said, "I can't claim a violation of the 1st Amendment after a violation takes place... by definition. ” trying to equate the 1st to only speech.

originally posted by: TDawg61
Deplorable Lives Matter too hilliary!So how does a presidential candidate reach out to millions of people she has mortally offended?Keep up the alienation Hdawg.

She started way before this. She is just doubling down on her hate.

COOPER: Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of? …

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians … probably the Republicans.


Read more: dailycaller.com...