In a Basket of Deplorables

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You condemn people for thought crimes, for the content of their thoughts, for how they think. Trump condemned criminals for their actions, their illegal entry, their raping, their drug dealing. Thinking is not a criminal action. Breaking the law is by definition criminal action. Your priorities are backwards, and is evidence you care about your own thoughts, your own feelings, while condemning the thoughts and feelings of others. You are entitled to do that all you want, of course.

Why so literal Les?

I'll let you get back to defending your heartthrob - now that I know you're dead serious, and not really interested in the bigger picture

I hope you are all comfy cozy on your right side of history. Someone will hopefully thank you for your service

Thanks for the blessing. I know how much it is worth, especially given that your own thoughts, your own feelings, are the only things that carry currency for you.

a reply to: ketsuko

I completely agree.

At school I have had the pleasure of talking with many foreign nationals, and everything I hear tells me we desperately need immigration reform. The present system is far too complex and takes far too long. But we have to secure the border first.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I have no problem with Mexicans. All I want is for them to follow the law.

And I never was passed about the deplorable comment. I am disgusted by it. There's a difference.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

Now I'm understanding your posts. I was under the impression you thought the Dem side in my conversations were trying to not sound negative. Sorry for the confusion. They are a weird lot that I debate on that site. Hardly any supporting statements for their stance and when I give them multiple unbiased sites that refute that stance, I am "lying and not fact checking". I tell them to Deny Ignorance, but it seriously goes right over their heads. ATS is an Oasis of Debate compared to there.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: pavil
Boy, I'd hate for Clinton Supporters to sound negative if that's them not trying to sound negative. Jeez.

If what is them trying not to sound negative?

Both sides take things their candidate has said and tried to tell others that what they have said was just twisted and that what they meant wasn't negative. Honestly, Trump supporters have had to do that a lot more than Hillary supporters.

She actually has to say something first.

The only details she has given on anything is the deplorables rant..

Everything else are hollow slogans and platitudes.

Personally I wished she had said Despicable instead.

But she might have run into a copyright violation or 2.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

That would horribly have backfired even more, as everyone would be holding up Despicable Me signs. Lol could you image the blowback? We could all run around with minion pins, and call Trump our Supervillain Overlord it'd be a blast...

I wish she used Despicable too now...

Nothing promotes community like having fun and a good laugh together.

If handled right Despicable would have been the nail in her coffin, cause that's just giving her opponents fun toys and party gags as badges of honor to play with.

The election would become a literal riot of fun and silliness.

Dammit Hillary why did you use deplorable instead of Despicable, the outcome could have been historic! Yeah it'd be the end for you Hillary, but man oh man the blast this election would become.

Oooooh oooooh, Trump could make a black silhouette of himself on a white backdrop with Deplorable Me on it, and then come on stage and great everyone with "Hello my minions!"

a reply to: pavil

That was my fault. I was a little stingy with my words.

I don't have a side so I have no problem saying that Clinton's statement is right out of Trump's playbook. Nobody on either side seems to be able to accept that, each for their own reasons.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have no problem with Mexicans. All I want is for them to follow the law.

A law and order country is a luxury - a kind of a gift for civilization. Sometimes the things that make a law and order country work are also the sorts of things that make it unkind, heartless - and unthinking. Without compassion. It doesn't take much to make the whole thing go bad

Following the law is something you do if you aren't desperate. I'd rather live in a country that understands that and comes up with ways to honor human rights rather than just appease it's comfortable citizens. It could be done - it's not impossible

But, whatever

And I never was passed about the deplorable comment. I am disgusted by it. There's a difference.

Are there no deplorable people? Or, is it wrong to actually call deplorable people deplorable?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

A law and order country is a luxury...

No.

Without law and order we would have utter chaos. Can you imagine a world where theft, assault, rape, and murder were not illegal? It would quickly devolve into survival of the strongest... one person with a desire to kill could wipe out a hundred before someone finally killed him. There could be no business, because looters would quickly destroy it. None of the luxuries we enjoy, no technology, just roving bands of trouble with no one to stop them.

Law and order is a necessity for civilization. It may sound romantic as a fantasy, but in reality it would be a disaster few could survibe.

You also advocate, along with a desire for lawlessness, an utter end to all fairness and equity. Without law and order, there are no rules to be fairly applied; might, and might alone, dictates who is treated how.

Just no. I cannot disagree enough.

Are there no deplorable people? Or, is it wrong to actually call deplorable people deplorable?

I would say, considering the definition of the word, that the very fact that someone is willing to use it toward such a generalized group is an indication of their inhumanity. So no, to me there are no, or at least such a small number as to be insignificant, deplorable people. If there are, I would say one of the greatest indicators of one being deplorable is the willingness to use deplorable to describe others. I believe no one is unforgivable and everyone has value.

Therefore, your second question makes no sense.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No. Without law and order we would have utter chaos.

No kidding?

Thank you for your detailed explanation of what law and order is :-)

Throughout you assume I don't understand it, what it accomplishes, or why it's useful and necessary

More than a necessity - it's also a byproduct. And in a country that's come to expect it to the point where it's taken for granted - it's also something of a commodity. Produced, bought, paid for. Supply - and demand

The end result is not always as noble as we might desire

You also advocate, along with a desire for lawlessness, an utter end to all fairness and equity. Without law and order, there are no rules to be fairly applied; might, and might alone, dictates who is treated how.

The hell you say? I advocate for what?

Redneck - usually you don't make these kinds of leaps in your thinking. Are you actually about to go full Trump on us?

Just no. I cannot disagree enough.

Well, I think you probably can - but it was getting late, and - I know how that goes

I would say, considering the definition of the word, that the very fact that someone is willing to use it toward such a generalized group is an indication of their inhumanity. So no, to me there are no, or at least such a small number as to be insignificant, deplorable people. If there are, I would say one of the greatest indicators of one being deplorable is the willingness to use deplorable to describe others. I believe no one is unforgivable and everyone has value.

So, you can be aware of people's inhumanity. That's a start. But, I guess the word inhumanity only applies to people that might call others deplorable

:-)

Not to people that would have human beings rounded up and forced out of the country because they're all rapists and murderers. They would have to be - wouldn't they? In order for us to stomach doing such a thing - they must be the worst of the worst

They aren't deplorable though - those murderers and rapists - they are redeemable?

It's all very confusing - but by the letter of the law, and by gum! We will sort this mess out and make America all better again!

Yippee

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You really should pick a side and stick to it.

Is law and order a luxury, or a necessity? You said it was a luxury. I say it's a necessity. Now you want to agree with me?

If you believe law and order is a luxury, i.e. just something we can have if we somehow deserve it, then you also advocate against fairness and equity for those who do not somehow deserve this luxury. That is, in my opinion, a horrendous position to take.

Or are you confused as to the difference between a luxury and a necessity?

So, you can be aware of people's inhumanity. That's a start. But, that only apples to people that might call others deplorable

It applies to anyone who wrongly harms or degrades others. More so to those who do so in wholesale fashion for personal gain.

Not to people that would have human beings rounded up and forced out of the country because they're all rapists and murderers.

I see where you're trying to twist this discussion. Your whole premise is false, however, because there is irrefutable proof, from law enforcement, that the number of murders and sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants is substantial. I posted stats from Texas earlier.

Do you care at all about Americans? Do you have any empathy for someone killed in cold blood? How about for women mentally scarred by being horribly violated? Or, as your words seem to indicate, do you only care for one particular group of people - Mexicans?

I care about both. I want to see no one harmed, American, Mexican, Chinese, Afghani... I even care what happens to Clinton. I wish there were a way she could somehow redeem herself and start caring about others too... I just also accept the fact that there is a low probability of that happening. I also accept the fact that there are people on this planet who would happily do harm to others, and when these people appear committing horrible crimes, they should be stopped and their victims protected... regardless of where they came from.

Do you disagree? Do you think we should protect the criminals and ignore the victims? Your words seem to say you do, since you are upset over the possibility that criminals could be subjected to the horrors of deportation... is that more horrific than what they did to their victims?

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that. A shame...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is law and order a luxury, or a necessity? You said it was a luxury. I say it's a necessity. Now you want to agree with me?

You really should pick a side and stick to it.

You should really try to not be so bossy. It doesn't help that you're not really interested in what I'm saying. I begin to see that maybe you just need a stage :-)

It's a byproduct of civilization - and a luxury. It's not something everyone can afford

If you think about it (just a little bit) you'll see that it depends on certain things. It doesn't spring from the earth fully formed. It absolutely depends on an agreement, on cooperation - and a shared philosophy

Do you care at all about Americans? Do you have any empathy for someone killed in cold blood? How about for women mentally scarred by being horribly violated? Or, as your words seem to indicate, do you only care for one particular group of people - Mexicans?

I care about both.

Of course you do. Because you are unique - and special - and a decent human being. And I don't care about the right things - only Mexicans? I'm a bad person - and not interested in America?

This conversation pretty much proves that you aren't as open as you pretend. Perhaps you believe I've insulted you? But that would be because you don't want to think about what I'm saying. That's the real shame

I have to say - I am disappointed

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It's a byproduct of civilization - and a luxury. It's not something everyone can afford

Oh! When you say it like that, it makes more sense. If we consider luxury as referencing a thing that one must strive for, not something that exists in nature, I can agree.

Isn't it amazing... just a simple clarification of your stance and I can go from extreme disagreement to agreement.

It's too bad so many can't seem to grasp how that exact same concept can apply to others as well as themselves. Or maybe it's not so many...

Donald Trump started his campaign to applause from people and laughter from politicians and the media. They said he would never file financial disclosure papers... he did. They said he would never take the GOP pledge... he did; the politicians broke it. They said he would fail in the debates... his numbers went up. They called him a racist... his numbers went up. They called him too tempermental... his numbers went up.

Do you ever wonder why?

It's all because people listening to him, supporting him, are tired of having every little word analyzed, every pause considered, every clearing of the throat debated as to its 'true meaning.' People don't communicate that way outside of the spotlight, and they don't want to be made to communicate that way.

When you, or anyone else, tries to micro-analyze Trump's words, you are telling millions upon millions of good, honest people that you want to micro-analyze their words and demonize them on the basis of a misunderstanding just like you do Trump. It might feel good to 'catch him with his own words,' but to others it makes you look petty and vengeful.

That is the secret to Trump's success. The people don't care about mudslinging; they want to see issues and character. And this campaign is giving it to them: the issue of honesty in dealing with others, the character of whether one wishes to tear others down or build the country up.

Clinton and her supporters have ridiculed, belittled, scoffed at, and tried to shame not just Trump, but everyone supporting him who is seeing those things I pointed out above. They have tried to twist his meaning in such a way that would make an ordinary person afraid to talk at all. They have misrepresented, took out of context, expanded definitions, leaped to illogical conclusions, and in general have been the epitome of PC bullies.

So when Clinton says something that can be so easily shown to be so heinous... it's time for some payback. As my daddy used to say, "The chickens are coming home to roost."

You have spent several pages discussing this deplorable comment with me, back and forth. In doing so, you have used wording, like you did above, that was technically correct but which was easily misinterpreted. I let this debate slide into areas that appeared off-topic only because I saw the on-topic relevance. I let you slip. I let you make statements I could then twist slightly into a terrible statement. I did all that because it was the only way to drive my point across - the flashing neon sign of hypocrisy that surrounds political correctness.

I never lied nor misrepresented myself. I never said anything I did not mean in the context I said it. I didn't have to. You made my point for me. For that, I suppose I should thank you.

Thank you.

Clinton made her bed. She spent her entire life twisting the words of others to demonize them for personal gain. She is an expert at that. Her supporters are adept at it. It has become their way of life. Now Clinton has made an error in wording, an error that allows for an interpretation - ironically with no actual twisting of words - that is horrible. In a different universe where she had not spent her life in the pursuit of politically correct massacres of others, I might could overlook it. But we don't live in an alternate universe. We live in this one.

Bed - made - lie.

Every time I see someone who tries to twist Trump's words to mean something they want it to mean, every time someone calls him a racist or a sexist, or any of the PC terms we have come to expect, I will think of Clinton's basket of deplorables.

Because obviously, she meant what I think she meant. She thinks Americans are deplorable, unforgivable, irredeemable, and despicable.

Irony...

TheRedneck

Donald Trump Sexism Tracker - Every offensive comment in one place

13 Examples of Trump Being Racist

Now, of course, we'll have contextualization, denial, source-damning, etc.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Perfect! Thank you!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

Perfect! Thank you!

TheRedneck

You're welcome!

Hope you learned something!

I'm not sure what the hubbub is about on this issue, really.

Given two choices to identify with in Clinton's speech, one "racist/sexist, etc." and one "hard-working American" ... a multitude of folks have identified as "deplorable."

That in itself says a lot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure what the hubbub is about on this issue, really.

Given two choices to identify with in Clinton's speech, one "racist/sexist, etc." and one "hard-working American" ... a multitude of folks have identified as "deplorable."

That in itself says a lot.

The same reasoning is used to justify indiscriminate violence, aggression, bullying, vandalism, and coercion against people who support a particular candidate, whether they identify as deplorable or not. Dismissing that says a lot.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Dismissing that given a choice to identify with hard-working American or racists, et. al. many chose racists?

Seems pretty fundamental and clear.

PS I see you dropped slander from the list ... Lol