Hillary just insults a quarter of all Americans

[Anonymous]

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

so . . .

1/4 of Americans are skinheads and klansmen?

wow - no clue those groups were growing so quickly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mark Cuban trolls the #ShrimpFingeredVulgarian

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

More Trump fraud. The whole family is deplorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

so . . .

1/4 of Americans are skinheads and klansmen?

wow - no clue those groups were growing so quickly

I have no trouble believing most Trump supporters are racist.

[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.

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.

You're not very bright, PP.

in snippets for your pea brain to handle:

1. NO candidate/potential leader to stoop to that level.
2. NO candidate/potential leader should speak in 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!

Do you always have difficulty with simple math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ya can never express enough contemp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You're not very bright, PP.

in snippets for your pea brain to handle:

1. NO candidate/potential leader to stoop to that level.
2. NO candidate/potential leader should speak in sweeping generalizations.

Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

so . . .

1/4 of Americans are skinheads and klansmen?

wow - no clue those groups were growing so quickly

I have no trouble believing most Trump supporters are racist.

fine

I'm not arguing about numbers. I'm pointing out that there's a REASON people act as they do, and you're not going to eliminate a hostile belief system by calling people deplorable. These are angry people who will continue to share that anger with future generations.

Are you hoping that soon they'll all die off - or that some will escape and marry other races?

We are talking about the here and now - the folks who may not be racist but who are hurting AND those who are indeed racist. Do you think that by labeling them ALL as deplorable she'll unite the country?

You do realize you can be educated AND ignorant, yes?

[Anonymous]

Trump has called women fat pigs and dogs, but it's a travesty for Clinton to say some of Trump's supporters are racists? Talk about a double standard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wait, weren't they also left behind by the Repub recession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You're not very bright, PP.

in snippets for your pea brain to handle:

1. NO candidate/potential leader to stoop to that level.
2. NO candidate/potential leader should speak in sweeping generalizations.

Hmmmm.

Again, I love the ASSumptions - that anyone who criticizes Clinton, especially if she stoops to Trump's level, is a Trump supporter!

lol!

It's called critical thinking, Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

so . . .

1/4 of Americans are skinheads and klansmen?

wow - no clue those groups were growing so quickly

I have no trouble believing most Trump supporters are racist.

fine

I'm not arguing about numbers. I'm pointing out that there's a REASON people act as they do, and you're not going to eliminate a hostile belief system by calling people deplorable. These are angry people who will continue to share that anger with future generations.

Are you hoping that soon they'll all die off - or that some will escape and marry other races?

We are talking about the here and now - the folks who may not be racist but who are hurting AND those who are indeed racist. Do you think that by labeling them ALL as deplorable she'll unite the country?

You do realize you can be educated AND ignorant, yes?

She didn't say all were racist, just half. If you're offended about being called a racist then the truth must hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has called women fat pigs and dogs, but it's a travesty for Clinton to say some of Trump's supporters are racists? Talk about a double standard!

again
and again
and again
and again

Not every person who criticizes Clinton is supporting Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You're not very bright, PP.

in snippets for your pea brain to handle:

1. NO candidate/potential leader to stoop to that level.
2. NO candidate/potential leader should speak in sweeping generalizations.

Hmmmm.

Again, I love the ASSumptions - that anyone who criticizes Clinton, especially if she stoops to Trump's level, is a Trump supporter!

lol!

It's called critical thinking, Einstein.

I didn't realize critical thinkers such as yourself needed to resort to schoolyard insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

so . . .

1/4 of Americans are skinheads and klansmen?

wow - no clue those groups were growing so quickly

I have no trouble believing most Trump supporters are racist.

fine

I'm not arguing about numbers. I'm pointing out that there's a REASON people act as they do, and you're not going to eliminate a hostile belief system by calling people deplorable. These are angry people who will continue to share that anger with future generations.

Are you hoping that soon they'll all die off - or that some will escape and marry other races?

We are talking about the here and now - the folks who may not be racist but who are hurting AND those who are indeed racist. Do you think that by labeling them ALL as deplorable she'll unite the country?

You do realize you can be educated AND ignorant, yes?

She didn't say all were racist, just half. If you're offended about being called a racist then the truth must hurt.

Idiot, you make no sense. Even calling "half" his supporters racists is a sweeping generalization. Did she do a study on his supporters?

Focusing on generalizations isn't a trait of a racist. But go on thinking you have a PhD in equity and human relations.