Hillary just insults a quarter of all Americans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Clinton is criticized for not being authentic and being too calculated in what she says, and then she speaks her mind and tells the truth, and now that's a bad thing?

FWIW, the white nationalists like David Duke who support Trump in large numbers ARE racists. The Trump supporters whose main attack on Clinton is to call her a bitch, say she sucks more than Monica, and want to inflict violence on her ARE misogynist. I don't see any issue with calling them out.

Then point to THEM instead of insulting "1/4" of Americans. She - the "educated one" - is no better than Trump in making a sweeping generalization about people.

Ignorance doesn't win against ignorance. Is this what we want for our country? to one up each other?

Have you ever been to a Trump rally or seen video footage of one or even read the reports of journalists attending them? Scary stuff.

She was talking about those people. And saying only half of them are deplorable is being pretty generous.

She gets the obese female vote. But I would never call those people "deplorable."

Were those obese females spewing hate?

[Anonymous]

Stolen from Twitter:

To clarify: it was okay for Reagan to call black women lazy welfare moochers, but not for Hillary to call white nationalists "deplorable"?

But no, I get it. Basket of deplorables is clearly the most toxic line of the campaign cycle. Way worse than, say, calling Mexicans rapists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Clinton is criticized for not being authentic and being too calculated in what she says, and then she speaks her mind and tells the truth, and now that's a bad thing?

FWIW, the white nationalists like David Duke who support Trump in large numbers ARE racists. The Trump supporters whose main attack on Clinton is to call her a bitch, say she sucks more than Monica, and want to inflict violence on her ARE misogynist. I don't see any issue with calling them out.

Then point to THEM instead of insulting "1/4" of Americans. She - the "educated one" - is no better than Trump in making a sweeping generalization about people.

Ignorance doesn't win against ignorance. Is this what we want for our country? to one up each other?

Have you ever been to a Trump rally or seen video footage of one or even read the reports of journalists attending them? Scary stuff.

She was talking about those people. And saying only half of them are deplorable is being pretty generous.

No

You don't attack people. Even if people are calling her a fat pig or a demented old lady, she - the supposed role model - shouldn't stoop down to his level. And she's almost there. She's dividing the country, too, with her rhetoric.

It's not acceptable in her case either.

But you're saying a tit for tat is fine.

That's what's wrong with American.

So we need to implode - which will happen soon enough - before we can build ourselves back up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Recognizing that people lie isn't living in La La Land, Einstein. It's a reality. People will quietly vote for Trump. And the ones to worry about are Inds who aren't voting third party. 

If they are quietly voting for him then it shows that they are ashamed to do so.

maybe

But I think some are afraid of saying something, too, fearing that it would result in some ugly (verbal? physical?) confrontation. My friend's husband said he was voting for Trump b/c he's sick of Dems killing off the middle class.

I don't think people are infatuated with Trump, but sometimes change - no matter how destructive it may be - is important in waking us up. We may need to wake up soon b/c these are the worst candidates thus far.

Sometimes you have to fall down hard before you learn your lesson.

Dems killing off the middle class?
This is the legacy of Fox News et al.

He's tired of the taxes. My mother's a senior citizen and she's tired of being penalized for having saved enough to keep her independent and healthy. There's some truth to what they're saying. The middle class supports the poor and the rich - yet get no breaks.

Again, who will subsidize the state college/university tuition for those making $125K or less? the middle class of course

If this ever transpires, post-secondary institutions will have to rely on themselves, according to Hillary, and states will have to do their parts, she added, to help create a free ride for many people. So schools will have to shave programs to cut corners and raise tuition for those who CAN pay.

All the while, the rich can send their own to elite institutions that many on these boards brag about.

lose-lose for the MC

You can thank the Dems for that. And that was my party for a long, long time.

I am a progressive Dem, but you can thank BOTH parties for that. Republican voters were so happy to get rid of unions when corps convinced them like idiots too. What happened? Wages went down and corporations made more profit. Nothing for the American workers. At the same time, Dems supported trade agreements that again made corps more profit and nothing for American workers.

Don't put that on one party. Corporations own both parties and Donald Trump owns a corporation. What does that tell you? Why would he push through trade legislation that is going to hurt his own company?

Repubs like free trade more than Dems. More Repubs voted for NAFTA than Dems. This is another bald face lie by Trump.

It was under Reagan that the NAFTA ball started rolling and manufacturing jobs started going down south. Even Trump has admitted to that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/

"Bill Clinton was certainly a supporter of NAFTA who pushed approval through Congress. But it was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.),..

In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/donald-trump-when-america-was-great/index.html

Trump: "As much as I liked Ronald Reagan, he started NAFTA,"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Clinton is criticized for not being authentic and being too calculated in what she says, and then she speaks her mind and tells the truth, and now that's a bad thing?

FWIW, the white nationalists like David Duke who support Trump in large numbers ARE racists. The Trump supporters whose main attack on Clinton is to call her a bitch, say she sucks more than Monica, and want to inflict violence on her ARE misogynist. I don't see any issue with calling them out.

Then point to THEM instead of insulting "1/4" of Americans. She - the "educated one" - is no better than Trump in making a sweeping generalization about people.

Ignorance doesn't win against ignorance. Is this what we want for our country? to one up each other?

Have you ever been to a Trump rally or seen video footage of one or even read the reports of journalists attending them? Scary stuff.

She was talking about those people. And saying only half of them are deplorable is being pretty generous.

No

You don't attack people. Even if people are calling her a fat pig or a demented old lady, she - the supposed role model - shouldn't stoop down to his level. And she's almost there. She's dividing the country, too, with her rhetoric.

It's not acceptable in her case either.

But you're saying a tit for tat is fine.

That's what's wrong with American.

So we need to implode - which will happen soon enough - before we can build ourselves back up.

Calling a racist deplorable is not the equivalent of calling Clinton a fat bitch. Merriam-Webster definition of deplorable: lamentable or deserving censure or contempt. I totally agree that racists and homophobes and misogynists are lamentable and deserving of censure.

Would you decry politicians of the 1950s and 60s who called the segregationists and lynchers deplorable? I admire those who spoke out against the racists of those times.

[Anonymous]

So it's no longer okay to call a skinhead or klansman deplorable? I must have missed the memo.

[Anonymous]

Mark Cuban trolls the #ShrimpFingeredVulgarian

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/eric-trump-tweets-out-fake-photo-of-rally-1786475295

[Anonymous]

Isn't it not just *acceptable* to call out racists as deplorable, but actually *NECESSARY* to do so?

Seems like it's the failure to name deplorable things what they really are that leads to tragedy and mayhem.

[Anonymous]

A quarter of Americans have it coming.

[Anonymous]

It really saddens me when bigots are victimized in this manner. They have feelings too. Let's all hope they can find themselves a safe space somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really saddens me when bigots are victimized in this manner. They have feelings too. Let's all hope they can find themselves a safe space somewhere.

I know, imagine how hard it is. They can't even tell a black joke without people looking uncomfortable and making excuses to go somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

2012: RT if you agree: We need a President who is fighting for all Americans, not one who writes off nearly half the country.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/248112876240379904

2016: Damn right, half the country deserves to be written off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Clinton is criticized for not being authentic and being too calculated in what she says, and then she speaks her mind and tells the truth, and now that's a bad thing?

FWIW, the white nationalists like David Duke who support Trump in large numbers ARE racists. The Trump supporters whose main attack on Clinton is to call her a bitch, say she sucks more than Monica, and want to inflict violence on her ARE misogynist. I don't see any issue with calling them out.

Then point to THEM instead of insulting "1/4" of Americans. She - the "educated one" - is no better than Trump in making a sweeping generalization about people.

Ignorance doesn't win against ignorance. Is this what we want for our country? to one up each other?

Have you ever been to a Trump rally or seen video footage of one or even read the reports of journalists attending them? Scary stuff.

She was talking about those people. And saying only half of them are deplorable is being pretty generous.

She gets the obese female vote. But I would never call those people "deplorable."

Were those obese females spewing hate?

Yes. I would call Hillary Herself an obese female. Oooooooo..... can you believe I said that?!

[Anonymous]

There are people who support Trump because they've been left behind in dems economic recovery. They're struggling and frustrated. HRC, as a candidate to lead the whole country, should be better than professing contemp for 25% of all citizens with sweeping generalizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2012: RT if you agree: We need a President who is fighting for all Americans, not one who writes off nearly half the country.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/248112876240379904

2016: Damn right, half the country deserves to be written off!

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.