Pence refuses to call David Duke deplorable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence doesn't name call moron,

Deplorable is a perfectly respectable adjective and doesn't fall under the rubric of "name calling."

Dummy, dope, moron, dumb, clown, loser, major loser, dopey clown, really dumb puppet -- that is name calling.

(All used by Trump to describe other people, many times over.)

And the PP, obviously

You forgot "Pocahontas", which he used to describe Elizabeth Warren used again today on live TV.

He lifted the Pocahontas moniker. Massachusetts voters had already been mocking her with that for a long time.

Yeah that makes it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't alienate the racist vote. That's about all they have left.

Source?

“You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1% or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

--Mitt Romney, on whether he would disavow the birthers in 2012

I'm looking for a source on your claim that the racist vote "is about all they have left." Like, numbers and what not.

That was not my claim. But I think you are taking the pp too literally. She means that the GOP cannot win national elections without them.

Saying that the racist vote is "all they have left" does not equal "they need those votes to win." It implies that the only people voting for Trump/Pence are racists. I'm not even a Trump supporter, but I'm not a fan of claims like that about either candidate. I'm sure this post will be met with deflection, but all I'm looking for is a source for PP's claim.

What part of "you are taking the pp too literally" did you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Pence can't endorse the word "deplorable" because it's more important to defeat Clinton than racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're not racists, you wouldn't support someone who supports racists.

"'We don't want his support and we don't want the support of the people who think like him,' he said."

-article in OP

So where do I find the part where he supports racists?

Where he has a hard time using an adjective that fits and it is not a "name"/insult

[Anonymous]

This is how you respond to any David Duke questions:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/07/us/the-1991-election-louisiana-bush-denounces-duke-as-racist-and-charlatan.html

"When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

"When someone has a long record, an ugly record of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign. So I believe David Duke is an insincere charlatan. I believe he's attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana, I believe he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for."

What happened to the GOP?!

[Anonymous]

How long is Hillary camp planning to milk this David Duke dude? Has he been relevant in anything for the last decade other than being used as a pawn for attacking republicans? I only hear about him every 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How long is Hillary camp planning to milk this David Duke dude? Has he been relevant in anything for the last decade other than being used as a pawn for attacking republicans? I only hear about him every 4 years.

Really? I didn't hear about him in 2008 or in 2012.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How long is Hillary camp planning to milk this David Duke dude? Has he been relevant in anything for the last decade other than being used as a pawn for attacking republicans? I only hear about him every 4 years.

well, he's running now for political office again because he has been emboldened by Trump and his basket of deplorables. Duke must think he's got a shot now that Trump's shown that hate filled rhetoric is a-ok and part of the normal political discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How long is Hillary camp planning to milk this David Duke dude? Has he been relevant in anything for the last decade other than being used as a pawn for attacking republicans? I only hear about him every 4 years.

Trump pulled his career out of the ashes. So regrettably he is relevant now. As for why Trump is at best ambivalent about the guy, here were his thoughts in 1991 - when he actually knew something about David Duke: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/29/how-trump-acknowledged-david-duke-on-cnn-in-199/208892

He admitted 25 years ago that opposing Duke has negative consequences for the GOP. I can't get behind anyone who can't see beyond their own election when it comes to the Klan.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Pence does not name call, and he has said he will not “validate the language that Hillary Clinton used to describe the American people.”

On top of that, I think it is Clinton who has “copyrighted" the term “deplorable.” It’s HER term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Pence does not name call, and he has said he will not “validate the language that Hillary Clinton used to describe the American people.”

On top of that, I think it is Clinton who has “copyrighted" the term “deplorable.” It’s HER term.

I am sorry, what?

Is he ok then with the Trump name-calling?


BTW, "deplorable" is not an insult. It's a descriptor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Pence does not name call, and he has said he will not “validate the language that Hillary Clinton used to describe the American people.”

On top of that, I think it is Clinton who has “copyrighted" the term “deplorable.” It’s HER term.

I am sorry, what?

Is he ok then with the Trump name-calling?


BTW, "deplorable" is not an insult. It's a descriptor

Yes it's ok when that side does shit like this, but not the other. It's classic Trump.

For example, voting for the Iraq war: Pence voted for it, but you know what Trump said about that when asked - "I don't care". But then why does care that HRC voted for it? Classic hypocritical Trump. I could go on... outsourcing, hiring foreign workers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now Pence SUPPORTS white supremacists because he refused to engage in what he considered name calling?

He could have easily said "Yes, the actions of David Duke and his white supremacist movement are deplorable." Strong position taken, no name calling.

But he didn't. He refused to engage on the basis of no name-calling even while sharing a ticket with a man who enjoys calling people all sorts of names.

I never get this point of view: here is what the person COULD HAVE & SHOUND HAVE said by anonymous these candidates are not your children they said what they said who are you to tell them ? When YOU are a candidate you can say it just the way you want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now Pence SUPPORTS white supremacists because he refused to engage in what he considered name calling?

He could have easily said "Yes, the actions of David Duke and his white supremacist movement are deplorable." Strong position taken, no name calling.

But he didn't. He refused to engage on the basis of no name-calling even while sharing a ticket with a man who enjoys calling people all sorts of names.

I never get this point of view: here is what the person COULD HAVE & SHOUND HAVE said by anonymous these candidates are not your children they said what they said who are you to tell them ? When YOU are a candidate you can say it just the way you want

LOL. Trying to decipher what you are saying.

We tell them what they should've said because they want our vote. Duh.