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

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
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:
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?
 
Mulberry Heel said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are some Democratic positions/policies that, I believe, drive people to Trump. One good example is the perception/fact that some Democrats are soft on crime. Some things are made up by the Right. The claim that the mobs robbing jewelry stores in California are doing so without consequence. That's simply not true, but the Right-wing media has implied that it is. Other things are true. NY's policy of "catch and release" has resulted in suspects/criminals committing more crimes. Police stood by, in at least one Democrat run city, while rioters looted businesses during the George Floyd riots. The Minneapolis City Council President saying that a fear of not being able to call the police, when someone is breaking into your house, "comes from a place of privilege". Just my opinion, but that last position, that being able to call police for help when your home is being broken into, is the beginning of where the Democratic Party goes to die.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
There are some Democratic positions/policies that, I believe, drove people to Trump. One good example is the perception/fact that Democrats are soft on crime. Some things are made up by the Right. The claim that the mobs robbing jewelry stores in California are doing so without consequence. That's simply not true, but the Right-wing media has implied that it is. Other things are true. NY's policy of "catch and release" has resulted in suspects/criminlals committing more crimes. Police stood by, in at least one Democrat run city, while rioters looted businesses during the George Floyd riots. The Minneapolis City Council President saying that a fear of not being able to call the police, when someone is breaking into your house, "comes from a place of privilege".
Click to expand...
Republicans have been claiming that Democrats are "soft on crime" long before Trump came along, or before the George Floyd protests. That doesn't justify voting for Trump, and it certainly isn't anything new for Republicans to claim. Republican candidates have been claiming that Democrats are soft on crime since at least Richard Nixon in 1968. It also doesn't explain, as I noted, why Republicans were so eager to vote for Trump in the 2016 GOP primaries over a host of other GOP candidates. Instead of blaming Democrats, maybe Trump voters should take some responsibility for their vote and just admit that they like the guy and his positions, including those which led Hillary to accurately describe some of his supporters as deplorables.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Republicans have been claiming that Democrats are "soft on crime" long before Trump came along, or before the George Floyd protests. That doesn't justify voting for Trump, and it certainly isn't anything new for Republicans to claim. It also doesn't explain, as I noted, why Republicans were so eager to vote for Trump in the 2016 GOP primaries over a host of other GOP candidates. Instead of blaming Democrats, maybe Trump voters should take some responsibility for their vote and just admit that they like the guy and his positions, including those which led Hillary to accurately describe some of his supporters as deplorables.
Click to expand...
The question of why Trump became so popular is a good question. I have an opinion, but that question is secondary to the question of Democratic policies/positions that would drive people to Trump.

Do you see how the things I mentioned, not conjecture but actual known events, would be very concerning to people?
 
ZenMode said:
The question of why Trump became so popular is a good question. I have an opinion, but that question is secondary to the question of Democratic policies/positions that would drive people to Trump.

Do you see how the things I mentioned, not conjecture but actual known events, would be very concerning to people?
Click to expand...
Do I believe that the things you mentioned are why people voted for Trump? No, I don't, and given what we know about Trump (and knew as early as 2016) it does not justify voting for Trump over Hillary. You can argue that the crime issue somehow made the difference for Trump, my argument is that those people would have voted for Trump anyway, and if not for the "soft on crime" issue they would simply have found another reason to vote for him. And that doesn't explain how Democrats are responsible for Trump's election. The people who are responsible for Trump's election are Republican voters for nominating him and then voting for him, twice. It's not the Democratic Party's fault that Trump was elected in 2016, or that he nearly won again four years later.
 
ZenMode said:
There are some Democratic positions/policies that, I believe, drive people to Trump. One good example is the perception/fact that some Democrats are soft on crime. Some things are made up by the Right. The claim that the mobs robbing jewelry stores in California are doing so without consequence. That's simply not true, but the Right-wing media has implied that it is. Other things are true. NY's policy of "catch and release" has resulted in suspects/criminals committing more crimes. Police stood by, in at least one Democrat run city, while rioters looted businesses during the George Floyd riots. The Minneapolis City Council President saying that a fear of not being able to call the police, when someone is breaking into your house, "comes from a place of privilege". Just my opinion, but that last position, that being able to call police for help when your home is being broken into, is the beginning of where the Democratic Party goes to die.
Click to expand...
Democrats look for alternatives to incarceration. We have the largest jail/prison population in the world. It costs taxpayers money, and largely keeps us less safe than other developed countries.

It makes dumb people feel safe to think that “criminals” are “in jail” instead of roaming around their communities. Republicans exploit that fear. They know that the average person doesn’t think about things like the school-to-prison pipeline, racial discrimination in policing policies, criminal recidivism, etc.

Bottom line is that Republicans always cater to people’s fears and base instincts, rather than seeking actual solutions to difficult and cerebral issues.

This isn’t Dems fault. Nor is there much Dems can do about it.
 
Last edited:
Mulberry Heel said:
Do I believe that the things you mentioned are why people voted for Trump? No, I don't, and given what we know about Trump (and knew as early as 2016) it does not justify voting for Trump over Hillary. You can argue that the crime issue somehow made the difference for Trump, my argument is that those people would have voted for Trump anyway, and if not for the "soft on crime" issue they would simply have found another reason to vote for him. And that doesn't explain how Democrats are responsible for Trump's election. The people who are responsible for Trump's election are Republican voters for nominating him and then voting for him, twice. It's not the Democratic Party's fault that Trump was elected in 2016, or that he nearly won again four years later.
Click to expand...
So, the original question was whether or not Democrats harbor and responsibility for the rise of Trump. The implication by Snoop was no, Dems have no responsibility. I pointed out that there is some actual basis for the belief that Dems are soft on crime... and a couple were pretty substantial examples..... one bordering on crazy.

That was just one example. I have others. There aren't 72 million nut cases like MTG/Lindell in the country. There are a lot of reasonable, sane people who voted for Trump and it very likely wasn't because they saw him as a great choice or even a good choice, any more than the 82 million Biden voters were voting FOR Biden because he was such a great candidate. Clearly he wasn't.
 
ZenMode said:
So, the original question was whether or not Democrats harbor and responsibility for the rise of Trump. The implication by Snoop was no, Dems have no responsibility. I pointed out that there is some actual basis for the belief that Dems are soft on crime... and a couple were pretty substantial examples..... one bordering on crazy.

That was just one example. I have others. There aren't 72 million nut cases like MTG/Lindell in the country. There are a lot of reasonable, sane people who voted for Trump and it very likely wasn't because they saw him as a great choice or even a good choice, any more than the 82 million Biden voters were voting FOR Biden because he was such a great candidate. Clearly he wasn't.
Click to expand...
The argument that I've heard from many Republicans since 2016 is that they can't really be blamed for voting for Trump, or be held responsible for his election, because the Democrats "gave them no choice." Frankly that is an abdication of personal responsibility for their choices. No one "forced" Republican voters to vote for Trump, they took that choice on their own, and they are responsible for it. And many of them did so twice, and are going to do so for a third time this year. You have also continued to avoid the question of why so many Republican primary voters chose Trump over other Republican candidates - were all those other Republican candidates also "soft on crime"? You seem to have a fixation on that one issue, which I believe is greatly exaggerated as a reason for voting for Trump. And at any rate how one can justify voting for a man who is himself repeatedly in trouble with the law and supported an insurrection against the government and is now a convicted felon as the "law and order" candidate strikes me as absurd. The responsibility for the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and near reelection in 2020 rests with the people who voted for him, not with those who warned about him and worked to defeat his election and who voted against him.
 
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...
If the worst thing that Democrats have done to be responsible for Trump is to not cater to bigots, I'm good with that plan.
 
ZenMode said:
So, the original question was whether or not Democrats harbor and responsibility for the rise of Trump. The implication by Snoop was no, Dems have no responsibility. I pointed out that there is some actual basis for the belief that Dems are soft on crime... and a couple were pretty substantial examples..... one bordering on crazy.

That was just one example. I have others. There aren't 72 million nut cases like MTG/Lindell in the country. There are a lot of reasonable, sane people who voted for Trump and it very likely wasn't because they saw him as a great choice or even a good choice, any more than the 82 million Biden voters were voting FOR Biden because he was such a great candidate. Clearly he wasn't.
Click to expand...
We have someone here confusing gaslighting for bosiding and blame dems being "soft on crime" for people supporting a criminal huckster who pardons his criminal friends and anyone who can help him get elected...to grift and stay out of jail...because dems are soft on crime.

That same person mention the change since 2016 and can't connect the dots of what rose up...they say ignorance is Zen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top