Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh I bet there is at least one person that resented Clinton's deplorable comment......I laugh thinking how folks assumed she was talking about THEM when she said that. She clearly said half of Trump's supporters and all my Republican friends were insulted. I always wondered why they didn't assume they were in the 'not deplorable' half.......maybe they know something I don't.
Sure just like saying half of all blacks are likely to become criminals. Sure the majority of all blacks who that comment doesn't represent, won't be offended. They will assume that the speaker was referring to the others, right? They will assume that no insult was intended right?
Hillary was absolutely trying to pressure people into feeling guilt for not voting for her.
I dont think you understand. If Trump said half of Hillary voters were a basket of deplorables, made up of gang members and welfare queens, are you saying the many who weren’t, wouldnt have still felt insulted by the comment?
It was guilt by association. She basically said, if you were a Trump voter, you are in with a bad crowd.
It wasn’t only insulting. It felt like she was blatantly trying to manipulate potential Trump voters. Manipulation only works when it is covert. When it is overt, it has the opposite effect.
Oh cut the self righteous bull. Trump implied that if you didn't vote for him you supported M-13 Gangs and didn't care about the young lady who was killed in California by illegal immigrants. That's as closing to calling someone deplorable as you can get -- or worse.
Campaigns get ugly. Both sides make sweeping generalizations about the other folks that are insulting, etc.
Oh cut the self righteous bull. Trump implied that if you didn't vote for him you supported M-13 Gangs and didn't care about the young lady who was killed in California by illegal immigrants. That's as closing to calling someone deplorable as you can get -- or worse.
Campaigns get ugly. Both sides make sweeping generalizations about the other folks that are insulting, etc.
I dont think he implied that at all. If his comments made you feel that way, I’m not going to argue with you about how you felt, but it is certainly debatable. There is no debate when it came to Hillary because she didn't “imply” anything. She just came right out and said it.
Remember this?
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
That didnt work out too well for Romney either. For the same reason.
I voted against Hillary when I voted for Trump. Her behavior as First Lady showed her to be a hypocrite. She talked feminism and empowering women and then sics the attack dog lawyers and private investigators on her husband’s victims. Instead of moving back to her home state of Illinois to run for office, she moves to NY where she has more fawning supporters. She changes her accent to speak to different groups and it is sickening to me. Be yourself. She lost the primary to Obama and became Secretary of State. Her actions while SOS showed she did not have what it took to be President. She seemed to have only her own personal ambitions as the reason for becoming president instead of honestly trying to do what is best for the nation as a whole. Though she was never indicted nor convicted, she carries with her baggage of scandals going back to Watergate to after leaving SOS. A few allegations are one thing. Her scandals are so numerous that it paints a pattern of corruption. Putting her in a position of this level of power would have been like handing over the keys to a bar to an alcoholic.
Wrong. The natural right to own weapons and to practice self-defense protects people from theft by those who violate the rights of others. People don't need unionized government employees to do it for them.
What if you're 80+ years old, or a child, or disabled, and some 250 pound thug attempts to break in or DOES break in and attacks you or ties you up or otherwise overcomes you? Are you still supposed to "practice self-defense"?
What if you are blind? Use a wheelchair? Should every granny have to carry?
Obviously (to most, at least), police work is not limited to protecting people from theft. Take a look at any 24 police report from any city of over 100,000, or even a rural area, and you'll see an immense diversity to what police are called upon - and expected - to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
