Hillary Clinton

[tar]

Really guys? I post a response to Hilary's plan to pull people out of extreme poverty and you wonder what that has to do with Hilary or the OP. Seems rather central, to me.

 

I have two daughters, I rather adore women and want to see them both make good salaries. I do not hate women.

 

I have always treated people with respect, and according to the content of their characters, without regard for the color of their skin.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Sorry the Post article was recent and not presented as evidence in this thread, but there is a general implied evidence value to current affairs, what is being talked about on the News, on Radio and TV and what we see happening on the streets of our cities.

 

It is not helpful for race relations, to break windows, loot stores, surround and trash police cars, for instance, it gives evidence that the cause is not on target in what it is trying to promote. Evidence does not only come in the form of a study or a 40 year chart. It is evident that we have a problem in Chicago with drug gangs killing each other, but your evidence shows that homicides are down over the last 40 years, and we should look at that evidence and ignore the fact that drug gangs are killing each other in Chicago. So Hilary deplores the violence, but she takes no responsibility for being part of the systemic racism that has cornered so many blacks in the Ghetto. And in my opinion (not evidence of anything, granted) she is pandering to the poor black community, by saying she will correct their plight, and fight against all the nasty bigots in the place and for the victims of systemic racism. She never once suggests that TCP might have caused the "bad dude" to be the "bad dude". It had to be, systemic racism. Even when the shooting officer in another incident was black himself.

 

I know you don't go by this kind of evidence, but the rest of the world does. Is it plain as day to me, when drugs affect a guy's judgement and causes him to feel on top of the world and impervious to harm. That white, female officer did not want to shoot that guy, and she did not shoot him because he was black. She shot him because he was big and strong, and high enough on whatever, to not answer her questions, and not comply with her commands to stop. The other officer that fired the taser felt the same threat, at the same time. I take offence at the brother of one of the guys recently shot to death by police of calling all police devils, and all white people devils. If there is some battle of right against wrong going on in this country, and it is framed as systematic racism against the poor black victim, then I am evil in that equation, and I do not agree with that assessment. It is plain to me that drugs cause bad judgement, and people should not loot and burn and destroy. I would rather we were one tribe. Black, white, brown, red, yellow, and we worked and lived and played together, looking out for one another and obeying the laws of the U.S.

 

Evidence of systemic racism is available. Evidence of criminality in the black community is available. Neither needs to be posted in a thread, for the facts to be clear to everybody.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Is this supposed to be connected to the Post article on the Clinton foundation? How?

[tar]

No, connected to iNow's post of Hilary's plan to end poverty in the inner cities.

And further connected to an earlier charge of mine that Hilary backs the black lives matter cause as a pander to the voting block, and she blames cops for racism, when she should be praising them for enforcing the law.

The president of the U.S. is chief law enforcement officer. If she is going to go into office with an agenda of cleaning up the police departments of the county, and not with an agenda of making the inner cities safe for law abiding citizens, I would call that a disadvantage, pertaining to the OP.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[DrP]

Well... er, black lives DO matter do they not? I am sure she supports all kinds of charities.

 

Some officers are good and enforce the law - a lot of them in that institution are well known to be racists - what is you point?

 

And how is eradicating poverty a bad thing? God your thinking is skewed.

Edited September 22, 2016 by DrP

[tar]

Well known to be racists, like you called me a racist, because that is your opinion of me?

 

If I were to say Blue lives matter too, you would call me a racist again. Because of the narrative that would make you right, and me wrong. I reject your narrative, for two reasons. One because I am not a racist. And two because I am looking for a narrative that makes all good people right, and no one right because the other good person is wrong on this or that perceived notion.

My line of argument here, goes to the OP in suggesting that it is a disadvantage for Hilary to engender the support of one segment of the population of the U.S. at the expense of another segment. This is not presidential. You cannot be against the Republicans, against the Drug companies, against the police, against the rich, against males, against corporations, against the Iranians, and be president of the U.S. The U.S. is composed of all those things. Good people in all those areas that she is "against". I think it a disadvantage to have a president, that hates her countrymen and wants to see them change, at her command.

I didn't say eradicating poverty would be a bad thing.

 

Although I do believe it is in general an unworkable plan. Primarily because it is not my fault that I have something that someone else does not. And it is not within your power to eradicate poverty, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It is not legal. It is not ethical. And it destroys wealth, which provides the capital to get anything done in the first place.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

I still don't see how this change in topic relates to Hillary, she is certainly not the cause of the current climate of discord inspiring the BLM movement. Admittedly, I don't see how her proposals would alter the current climate particularly when we have a sitting President with the authority, popularity, and, perhaps, empathy to enact changes. However, it'd be foolish to think that Mrs. Clinton would be the lesser of our choices for POTUS given the divisive stance of her nearest competitor. There's a youthful segment of our population that will not accept the intimidations of the past or any threat to turn back the clock on their civil liberties (e.g., profiling and stop-and-frisk). It may be time for substantial changes in the training of those with the authority to take the lives of American citizens. The Lives Matter movement isn't about elevating one group of citizens over another, it's about acknowledging and changing the oppression and injustice inflicted on one group to the exclusion of all others.

[Phi for All]

And two because I am looking for a narrative that makes all good people right, and no one right because the other good person is wrong on this or that perceived notion.

 

Not going to happen, because reality doesn't work that way. Good people can be wrong because they aren't well informed. In cases like that, a good person can be right and they can tell another good person why they're wrong in this or that perceived notion. You still have two good people, but one is wrong. Sorry but true.

 

As an example, take this voter ID issue. Many good people are taken in by the seeming logic of making sure voters are who they say they are. But in actuality, voter fraud is a tiny, tiny problem because of the penalties versus rewards. And voter ID procedures are disproportionately difficult and intrusive. It's like suggesting we drape a cloth over the entire US so pigeons don't shit on statues. Or in the case of voter fraud, so they don't shit on statues of Millard Fillmore.

[Willie71]

Still busy not posting any actual evidence, I see. And that you take posting facts as sarcastic and condescending? Wow.

Look at the language used. The way the message is delivered is important. Clinton supporters/apologists piss people off and hurt Clinton. Keep going. You are doing a great job.

 

I feel no need to sell you on anything. I've conceded there are no convictions to support my position, which is the standard you set. It's an unreasonable standard, considering the political and legal power of the people we are discussing. You can use the same standard to defend the bankers who brought down the economy in 2008, as well as BushII and Cheney and their war crimes. You must believe they are all innocent too. They haven't done anything illegal, or different from their peers. I used to expect better from you. You opened my eyes.

[swansont]

You cannot be against the Republicans, against the Drug companies, against the police, against the rich, against males, against corporations, against the Iranians, and be president of the U.S. The U.S. is composed of all those things. Good people in all those areas that she is "against". I think it a disadvantage to have a president, that hates her countrymen and wants to see them change, at her command.

 

How can you be president if you are against the democrats, against the poor, against the middle class, against women, etc.?

 

How is your claim not a huge collection of straw men?

 

Why can't you be in favor of reforming flawed systems, even though there are many good people in those systems? Those are completely separate issues.

 

And where do you find the unmitigated gall to make a bald claim that someone hates her countryman? Remarks like that suggest that you (or anyone else who says it) think that the only way to be patriotic is to believe and act as you do. That's a bunch of BS. You don't own patriotism.

 

That it's not even backed up with any examples to try and justify your hateful conclusion makes it even worse, IMO.

Look at the language used. The way the message is delivered is important. Clinton supporters/apologists piss people off and hurt Clinton. Keep going. You are doing a great job.

 

I feel no need to sell you on anything. I've conceded there are no convictions to support my position, which is the standard you set. It's an unreasonable standard, considering the political and legal power of the people we are discussing. You can use the same standard to defend the bankers who brought down the economy in 2008, as well as BushII and Cheney and their war crimes. You must believe they are all innocent too. They haven't done anything illegal, or different from their peers. I used to expect better from you. You opened my eyes.

 

That these people were not charged does not mean there is no evidence against them of lawbreaking.

 

I asked for evidence of illegal activity, not about convictions. That's just moving the goalposts and strawmanning. It's unfortunate that your use of logical fallacies have somehow lowered my credibility in your eyes.

[Willie71]

How can you be president if you are against the democrats, against the poor, against the middle class, against women, etc.?

 

How is your claim not a huge collection of straw men?

 

Why can't you be in favor of reforming flawed systems, even though there are many good people in those systems? Those are completely separate issues.

 

And where do you find the unmitigated gall to make a bald claim that someone hates her countryman? Remarks like that suggest that you (or anyone else who says it) think that the only way to be patriotic is to believe and act as you do. That's a bunch of BS. You don't own patriotism.

 

That it's not even backed up with any examples to try and justify your hateful conclusion makes it even worse, IMO.

 

Holy Batman Swansort!!!! I usually disagree with everything Rar says, but you seem to have no u derstanding of what a third way democrat is. You might start with this. It's a good primer on third way democrats. Maybe you will stop insulting those who get there information from less biased sources than corporate news.

 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25666062-listen-liberal

 

From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?

 

It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.

 

But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

 

With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America. (less)

[swansont]

Holy Batman Swansort!!!! I usually disagree with everything Rar says, but you seem to have no u derstanding of what a third way democrat is. You might start with this. It's a good primer on third way democrats. Maybe you will stop insulting those who get there information from less biased sources than corporate news.

 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25666062-listen-liberal

 

 

 

IOW, no specific evidence to address my point yet again.

 

I've only read the phrase "third way democrat" a couple of times, here on SFN. I have no idea what it means. But I think that's irrelevant, since we're talking about one person and pretty specific accusations, and not a generalization from a label being applied to a group.

 

Since this keeps happening, maybe I need to break it down more, so it's easily digestible. For any of the items in tar's list, please explain how she is against that entire group, as opposed to the accusation being a gross, hyperbolic generalization. With something more substantial than "She's a third-way democrat", please.

[Willie71]

 

 

Edit: how many mob bosses were never convicted because they had power? OJ didn't do it either. Right? The standard shuts down communication, and works against Clinton because it is so xxxxxxx tone deaf. It annoys those who want to discuss the issues. The fact that Clinton's campaign paid people to pose as regular forum users to "correct the record" ie. spread pro Clinton propaganda is sad and pathetic. The only way I can see people being this unaware of the legitimate Clinton concerns is if they only get their information from cable news. Maybe some people are just unaware of the legitimate criticisms. I will also respond to the accusation that I have no evidence or admitted I have no evidence. I don't have evidence that meets an unrealistic standard. Climate change deniers, I can't prove that the sea hasn't raised 10 feet already, so there isn't evidence that climate change is real. I can see how that works.

IOW, no specific evidence to address my point yet again.

 

I've only read the phrase "third way democrat" a couple of times, here on SFN. I have no idea what it means. But I think that's irrelevant, since we're talking about one person and pretty specific accusations, and not a generalization from a label being applied to a group.

 

Since this keeps happening, maybe I need to break it down more, so it's easily digestible. For any of the items in tar's list, please explain how she is against that entire group, as opposed to the accusation being a gross, hyperbolic generalization. With something more substantial than "She's a third-way democrat", please.

Then excuse me for being direct. You have no understanding of what you are talking about. Clinton and Gore brought third way democrat principles to the US. You need to do some research before you keep dismissing those who are much more informed than you. You just admitted you have no understanding of what the Democratic Party currently stands for, and H Clinton embodies that more than anyone else. The Clintons brought this crap to the US but don't critic use them specifically? WTF is that kind of apologetic? I suggest you inform yourself before you really embarrass yourself. I'm not meaning this as an insult. This is classic dunning Kruger. We all fall for it from time to time.

 

 

 

 

So, Swansort, your response is : "lalalalala I can't hear you."

[Ten oz]

Edit: how many mob bosses were never convicted because they had power? OJ didn't do it either. Right? The standard shuts down communication, and works against Clinton because it is so xxxxxxx tone deaf. It annoys those who want to discuss the issues. The fact that Clinton's campaign paid people to pose as regular forum users to "correct the record" ie. spread pro Clinton propaganda is sad and pathetic. The only way I can see people being this unaware of the legitimate Clinton concerns is if they only get their information from cable news. Maybe some people are just unaware of the legitimate criticisms. I will also respond to the accusation that I have no evidence or admitted I have no evidence. I don't have evidence that meets an unrealistic standard. Climate change deniers, I can't prove that the sea hasn't raised 10 feet already, so there isn't evidence that climate change is real. I can see how that works.

I have no issue with pro Clinton suporters defending her in forums, on twitter, facebook, or whatever. If she paid credentialed journalists to plat false stories about her which she later cited as evidence of something (a trick the right has done for decades) I would have a bigger problem with it. Bush 43 had a fake reporter in press breifings (Jeff Gannon) to ask him questions; that is propaganda. What people say on social media is less of an issue. We all understand that social media is a cesspool of free speech. To win a national election candidates must combat each other on multiple fronts: news media, op-eds, late night, youtube, twitter, instgram, facebook, online forums, and etc. While I wish all candidates would be honest and transparent I also don't want to see them falling on the swords doing so.

[DrmDoc]

Edit: how many mob bosses were never convicted because they had power? OJ didn't do it either. Right? The standard shuts down communication, and works against Clinton because it is so xxxxxxx tone deaf. It annoys those who want to discuss the issues. The fact that Clinton's campaign paid people to pose as regular forum users to "correct the record" ie. spread pro Clinton propaganda is sad and pathetic. The only way I can see people being this unaware of the legitimate Clinton concerns is if they only get their information from cable news. Maybe some people are just unaware of the legitimate criticisms. I will also respond to the accusation that I have no evidence or admitted I have no evidence. I don't have evidence that meets an unrealistic standard. Climate change deniers, I can't prove that the sea hasn't raised 10 feet already, so there isn't evidence that climate change is real. I can see how that works.

 

Then excuse me for being direct. You have no understanding of what you are talking about. Clinton and Gore brought third way democrat principles to the US. You need to do some research before you keep dismissing those who are much more informed than you. You just admitted you have no understanding of what the Democratic Party currently stands for, and H Clinton embodies that more than anyone else. The Clintons brought this crap to the US but don't critic use them specifically? WTF is that kind of apologetic? I suggest you inform yourself before you really embarrass yourself. I'm not meaning this as an insult. This is classic dunning Kruger. We all fall for it from time to time.

 

 

 

 

So, Swansort, your response is : "lalalalala I can't hear you."

 

You seem to be asking us to read between the lines but all you've shown us are empty spaces, which is what one usually finds when asked to do so. Your commentary style suggest a deeper anger for the Clintons than any other politician in US history. Are they truly the worst of worst? Where is the real evidence other than seemingly hateful innuendo?

[Delta1212]

 

 

IOW, no specific evidence to address my point yet again.

 

I've only read the phrase "third way democrat" a couple of times, here on SFN. I have no idea what it means. But I think that's irrelevant, since we're talking about one person and pretty specific accusations, and not a generalization from a label being applied to a group.

 

Since this keeps happening, maybe I need to break it down more, so it's easily digestible. For any of the items in tar's list, please explain how she is against that entire group, as opposed to the accusation being a gross, hyperbolic generalization. With something more substantial than "She's a third-way democrat", please.

You don't know what a third way Democrat is?

 

I've been on your side for pretty much this whole debate, but I do find that mildly surprising and think that it's important information for historical context, even if it doesn't change my vote at all.

[Willie71]

You seem to be asking us to read between the lines but all you've shown us are empty spaces, which is what one usually finds when asked to do so. Your commentary style suggest a deeper anger for the Clintons than any other politician in US history. Are they truly the worst of worst? Where is the real evidence other than seemingly hateful innuendo?

It takes massive apologetics to not see the comical levels of corruption in current US politics. I said quite a few posts ago I have no interests in debating with you because of your apologetics. I continued with Swansort because I have seen her hold very reasonable positions on most issues, and this seems to be the exception where she has the blinders on. I have no history of debating with you as I have no knowledge if you are capable of looking at things beyond the apologetics you present on this issue. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

 

And again, I comment on the Clintons not in relativistic terms. You seem to be incapable of understanding that.

[swansont]

You don't know what a third way Democrat is?

I've been on your side for pretty much this whole debate, but I do find that mildly surprising and think that it's important information for historical context, even if it doesn't change my vote at all.

I can't see how knowing or not knowing that label changes anything.

 

Edit: how many mob bosses were never convicted because they had power? OJ didn't do it either. Right? The standard shuts down communication, and works against Clinton because it is so xxxxxxx tone deaf. It annoys those who want to discuss the issues. The fact that Clinton's campaign paid people to pose as regular forum users to "correct the record" ie. spread pro Clinton propaganda is sad and pathetic. The only way I can see people being this unaware of the legitimate Clinton concerns is if they only get their information from cable news. Maybe some people are just unaware of the legitimate criticisms. I will also respond to the accusation that I have no evidence or admitted I have no evidence. I don't have evidence that meets an unrealistic standard. Climate change deniers, I can't prove that the sea hasn't raised 10 feet already, so there isn't evidence that climate change is real. I can see how that works.

Why do you persist in this line of discussion? I did not set the bar at having a conviction. I asked for evidence. Discussing convictions is just you, mischaracterizing the discussion. OJ, for example, went to trial — there are plenty of things that were offered up as evidence.

 

I am asking you to make me aware of legitimate concerns and criticisms. Something that's not based on propaganda (including the repeated big lie), or innuendo, or shoddy reporting. I don't see why that's an unrealistic standard.

 

 

Then excuse me for being direct. You have no understanding of what you are talking about. Clinton and Gore brought third way democrat principles to the US. You need to do some research before you keep dismissing those who are much more informed than you. You just admitted you have no understanding of what the Democratic Party currently stands for, and H Clinton embodies that more than anyone else. The Clintons brought this crap to the US but don't critic use them specifically? WTF is that kind of apologetic? I suggest you inform yourself before you really embarrass yourself. I'm not meaning this as an insult. This is classic dunning Kruger. We all fall for it from time to time.

I'm not claiming any particular expertise. I'm asking a question, and you (and others) keep answering a different one. I'm not asking about Bill Clinton or Al Gore, or what the democratic party stands for. I asked what evidence there is for actual corruption on the part of Hillary. It's repeatedly claimed but never substantially supported. It's always nebulous and hand-wavy. If you are indeed more informed than me, then please reveal your sources of facts. (Not sources of opinion)

 

I could at this point ask for details of how Hillary "embodies that more than anyone else" but given recent history I doubt I'd get a satisfactory level of detail.

 

So, Swansort, your response is : "lalalalala I can't hear you."

 

I'm not saying I can't hear you, I am asking why you can't or won't answer the question I asked.

 

I'm not sure if this is a repeated accidental typo, or you are trolling, or this is an indication of your reading skills, or something else, but please carefully check my user name and compare it to what you keep writing.

[tar]

'How can you be president if you are against the democrats, against the poor, against the middle class, against women, etc.?'

 

Exactly my point SwansonT. Exactly my point. Anything you think I am arguing inappropriately against Hilary has already been argued by Hilary against Trump. The claim of divisiveness is easily made against your opponent, but impossible to make such a charge against your own candidate.

Hilary can not understand why she is not 50 points ahead of Trump. Neither can her supporters.

 

Neither Hilary or her supporters can imagine their political rivals as being good people, with good intentions, capability and love of country and what the country stands for. That is a disadvantage for a president.

[swansont]

'How can you be president if you are against the democrats, against the poor, against the middle class, against women, etc.?'

 

Exactly my point SwansonT. Exactly my point. Anything you think I am arguing inappropriately against Hilary has already been argued by Hilary against Trump. The claim of divisiveness is easily made against your opponent, but impossible to make such a charge against your own candidate.

 

 

But who has used such a blunt instrument in their arguments against Trump?

[tar]

Hilary, Biden, Obama, Warren... to name a few.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

It takes massive apologetics to not see the comical levels of corruption in current US politics. I said quite a few posts ago I have no interests in debating with you because of your apologetics. I continued with Swansort because I have seen her hold very reasonable positions on most issues, and this seems to be the exception where she has the blinders on. I have no history of debating with you as I have no knowledge if you are capable of looking at things beyond the apologetics you present on this issue. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

 

And again, I comment on the Clintons not in relativistic terms. You seem to be incapable of understanding that.

 

I understand, for clarity sake, your not wanting to comment on Mrs. Clinton in relativistic or comparative terms. What you don't seem to understand is that was not the nature of my most recent post addressed to you. However, I respect your decision not to engaged me...but forgive me If occasionally I fail to disregard posts contrary to my opinion or without foundation in credible unapologetic evidence.

[Delta1212]

I know plenty of generally normal people with good intentions and reasonable hopes for themselves and their country who also have some very noxious opinions on certain subjects.

 

A problem I run into over and over again is the caricaturization of things like racism. People follow a chain of logic that goes something like "Racism is evil. If someone calls something I believe racist, they are calling me evil. I am a good person. Therefore that person is wrong."

 

You can be wrong, you can be violently dangerously wrong to the lasting detriment of whole swathes of the population, without being an evil person. You can hold views that harm other people when implemented and still be a completely average normal person.

 

We cannot have a political debate about the value of ideas if you identify so strongly with a particular opinion that you take any criticism of that opinion as an indictment of you as a person. If a particular idea or political philosophy has done demonstrable damage to people in this country and elsewhere, you cannot say "Criticizing this philosophy means that you think I'm an evil person and I can't deal with anyone who thinks I am evil."

 

While I do respect you and the way that you present your thoughts, TAR, this is something I have noticed that you do a lot. You have a tendency to interpret criticism of certain policies, beliefs or political organizations as sweeping judgments of the moral character of anyone who supports those things.

 

You can be wrong without being a bad person, and I think you need to try to stop interpreting people pointing out that you or others are wrong as people claiming that you or said others are somehow evil people.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

My argument is not for me personally, only, it is for all the people that are reduced to garbage in someone's mind, because a bad label has been placed on them, and they have, I have, you have many redeeming social characteristics, that would suggest we should not be thrown in the garbage.

This board has a bias against religious people because some are deniers of fact, and are creationists, and association is made with stupid people, with deniers of global warming, with KKK, with Fox news, with homophobes, racists, Republicans, Xenophobes, Misogynists, Racists, and any other labels that fit in the basket of deplorables.

 

My arguments are purely from the fact that there are deplorable people that vote democrat as well. Drug addicts, rapists, criminals, child pornographers, gang members, union hit men, or whatever, which do not indict the whole organization, nor half its members.

 

Straw men arguments against republican policies are fair, because the whole group is so hateful and stupid, you can't go wrong calling them the devil. (right?)

 

But say a few things that align oneself with anything that was ever mentioned by a Republican, and suddenly you are spouting Fox talking points, and using all sorts of invalid logic.

 

My points are not that I take offense at being called a racist, when I am not, my point is that there is a bias on this board against so many different capable, loving people, that fall into the basket of deplorables in one way or another, that there is nobody left, to run the country.

 

That is, if you add up all the people the Democrats hate, and all the people the Republicans hate you have more people worthy of hate, then you have people worthy of the benefit of the doubt, and worthy of ones love and support.

 

Which leads me to consider it better to think of the other U.S. Citizen as on your side, no matter what, than to look for ways to prove them wrong.

 

I defend myself against incorrect character assassination attempts as a proxy for everyone else that deserves your love and support, and do not deserve you contempt.

 

Regards, TAR

 

At the least, one should consider a deplorable person as a charity case, that deserves your pity. There is absolutely no reason to love a leper and hate a republican. We have families and bleed red same as any other American.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

But I don't hate people who vote Republican. That's my point. I have many relatives who vote Republican. I have many relatives that I consider good people who vote Republican.

 

When I point out terrible things that Republican politicians have done in our country, my objective is to get people to notice that, hey, that's actually a pretty terrible and harmful idea. I'm not calling people who have voted for Republicans monsters. At worst, I think many of them are misinformed.

 

You're conflating criticism of an idea with criticism of the character of the people who subscribe to that idea.

[Phi for All]

You can be wrong without being a bad person, and I think you need to try to stop interpreting people pointing out that you or others are wrong as people claiming that you or said others are somehow evil people.

 

I had an elderly relative who was like this. Thought it was terrible what they did to Rodney King. Thought it was wrong to discriminate against black people. Thought we shouldn't take advantage of them just because slavery made them less intelligent than other humans.

 

She didn't have an evil bone in her body, but she was so badly educated that her wrongness could be absolutely monumental at times. She was generous, loving, and wrong.