Harris/Walz Catch-All | Kamala blitz in closing stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 975
  • Views: 34K
  • Politics 
Rock said:
Why would the Democrats be responsible for tens of millions of idiots in America?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily responsible, but they should be asking themselves what it is that has nearly half the voters in the country supporting a lying imbecile. Surely, disagreements about abortion, taxes, etc aren't the only factor. Just few years ago, we had Obama vs Romney. Look where we are now.
 
ZenMode said:
I believe this is the second time you've given me your resume. It didn't change anything the first time and won't this time. Regardless of your previous employment, or how much you are clearly in love with your own intellect, there are clear examples of your liberal leanings impacting your views. The recent disagreement about using abnormal to describe homosexuality is an example. The discussion was littered with subjectivity and emotions despite the fact that homosexuality clearly fits the definition of abnormal, while heterosexuality fits the definition of normal.

I believe, but could be wrong, it was you who, on the old ZZLP, tried to passively justify the George Floyd riots by referencing MLKj's quote “A riot is the language of the unheard” while leaving out that MLKj, in the same speech, said that rioting actually hurt the cause of the civil rights movement. This is something I'm sure you already knew, since you are so intelligent and well-read, yet failed to acknowledge because of, IMO, your liberal bias. Again, if I have the wrong person, disregard.
Click to expand...
1. That doesn't sound like me. I understand the theory of non-violent resistance. It has to be organized, targeted, and non-violent. Not riots.
2. The meanings of the words "bothsides" and "abnormal" are political? Fascinating. You might have noticed that nobody agreed with you on the normality and nobody is going to agree with you here.
3. It's too bad that you can't find it within yourself to learn from someone who knows more than you. And that failing is directly connected to the other one, which is that you don't know very much. I gave you the correct word for what you are trying to express: atypical. You should have thanked me for helping you express yourself more accurately, but you can only lead a horse to water. Drinking is the decision of the horse, or in this case, the horse's arse.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Not necessarily responsible, but they should be asking themselves what it is that has nearly half the voters in the country supporting a lying imbecile. Surely, disagreements about abortion, taxes, etc aren't the only factor. Just few years ago, we had Obama vs Romney. Look where we are now.
Click to expand...
“We” are on the right side of history. Where are you?
 
ZenMode said:
Not necessarily responsible, but they should be asking themselves what it is that has nearly half the voters in the country supporting a lying imbecile. Surely, disagreements about abortion, taxes, etc aren't the only factor. Just few years ago, we had Obama vs Romney. Look where we are now.
Click to expand...


Rage bait...bot talk.
 
ZenMode said:
Are you talking about her labeling of all Trump supporters as deplorables?
Click to expand...
She actually said that only half were deplorables, which Republicans of course expanded to all Trump supporters. And based on what we've all seen over the past eight years, I'd say that she has largely been proven correct. As she phrased it at the time - "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."

She also said that the other half of Trump supporters "are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

That second section of her comments - which of course people like you conveniently ignore - seems to be precisely the kind of sympathetic approach that people like you want Democrats to show towards Trumpers. And of course Trumpers ignored it and claimed to be proud to be a deplorable. And so here we are. And as someone else noted, it's not Democrats that need to be looking in a mirror.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
1. That doesn't sound like me. I understand the theory of non-violent resistance. It has to be organized, targeted, and non-violent. Not riots.
2. The meanings of the words "bothsides" and "abnormal" are political? Fascinating. You might have noticed that nobody agreed with you on the normality and nobody is going to agree with you here. That's because words have no meaning.
3. It's too bad that you can't find it within yourself to learn from someone who knows more than you. And that failing is directly connected to the other one, which is that you don't know very much. I gave you the correct word for what you are trying to express: atypical. You should have thanked me for helping you express yourself more accurately, but you can only lead a horse to water. Drinking is the decision of the horse, or in this case, the horse's arse.
Click to expand...
1. I couldn't possibly find the post without a functioning search tool, nor could I come close to regurgitating your response to my pointing out "your" error, but the response had very much the same tone as some of your responses to me, which is to say "I'm very well read and smarter than you. I know MLKj better than you."

2. No bothsides and abnormal are not inherently political and those who disagree with my use of abnormal, disagreed for the same political/emotional reasons that you did. Whataboutism may be a more accurate term to describe your Trump response to Kamala.
3. Your arrogance is really pretty amazing. I would agree that atypical also works. It's very common for multiple words to be similar enough in meaning that they are interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that abnormal is wrong. Abnormal is accurate also. Well, it's objectively accurate but subjectively inaccurate for some people, all of them are liberal, but only because it's mean.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Are you talking about her labeling of all Trump supporters as deplorables?
Click to expand...
I’m certainly referencing her basket of deplorables comment, although not the version you’ve misrepresented here.
 
TarSpiel said:
I'd like to see someone try to make the case that the Q morons and the jackasses who stormed the capitol *weren't* deplorable.

Hillary was bang on right.
Click to expand...
She wasn’t right. Because the word “deplorable” was too mild for those people.
 
SnoopRob said:
I’m certainly referencing her basket of deplorables comment, although not the version you’ve misrepresented here.
Click to expand...
I didn't spend any time, at the time it happened, trying to dig into and understand what she was saying. I really couldn't care less. I was just referencing a situation that came to mind and would be easily recognizable based on the term "deplorables".

It sounds to me like you are putting full blame for Trump's success on the "deplorables" and no responsibility on Democrats (not just politicians)?
 
ZenMode said:
1. I couldn't possibly find the post without a functioning search tool, nor could I come close to regurgitating your response to my pointing out "your" error, but the response had very much the same tone as some of your responses to me, which is to say "I'm very well read and smarter than you. I know MLKj better than you."

2. No bothsides and abnormal are not inherently political and those who disagree with my use of abnormal, disagreed for the same political/emotional reasons that you did. Whataboutism may be a more accurate term to describe your Trump response to Kamala.
3. Your arrogance is really pretty amazing. I would agree that atypical also works. It's very common for multiple words to be similar enough in meaning that they are interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that abnormal is wrong. Abnormal is accurate also. Well, it's objectively accurate but subjectively inaccurate for some people, all of them are liberal, but only because it's mean.
Click to expand...
It is not arrogance for a professional to understand that he is better at his profession than non-professionals. To the contrary, the real arrogance comes from the non-professional who thinks his opinion is just as good.

You are right that whataboutism would be more accurate than bothsides. This might be the first time in board history that you've admitted you made a mistake. I'm not conceding that whataboutism is accurate, but at least it's in the realm of plausibility. It's not definitionally false.

If you think politics was the reason that people were pushing back on your false contention that abnormal is a factual description, then I don't know what to say. Maybe some people objected because they thought it was mean. My objection was based on semantics and logic. Normal is a judgment, end of story. Just like norms and normative. They all come from the same root (normal in math is different and comes from the Greek). I'm not going into this again.

Chalking up your errors to political persecution is pathetic. People weren't correcting you because of politics. They were correcting you because you were wrong.
 
ZenMode said:
I didn't spend any time, at the time it happened, trying to dig into and understand what she was saying. I really couldn't care less. I was just referencing a situation that came to mind and would be easily recognizable based on the term "deplorables".

It sounds to me like you are putting full blame for Trump's success on the "deplorables" and no responsibility on Democrats (not just politicians)?
Click to expand...
How, exactly, are Democrats responsible for Trump? I've heard some Trumpers claim this since his election in 2016 and it makes no sense. How could Democrats be responsible for the candidates Republicans choose to support? It certainly wasn't Democrats who "forced" Republican primary voters to choose him in the 2016 GOP primaries over a host of other candidates. Republican primary voters fell over themselves to vote for Dear Leader before he even faced Hillary, so what was motivating them then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top