"the basket of deplorables"

anatta said:
I have no interest in looking back thru pages of posts to reconstruct what you want to talk about.

"clarifying" isn't helping if you are simply making references to your previous references...

If you are too lazy/uninterested to say something new/coherent without harping over what was said this morning
-like a 100 conversations ago for me- then I am disinterested enough to dismiss it as wasting time.


^ "arrogant prick" as I mentioned .
Click to expand...

Please, you are the one who is incoherent due to your inability to maintain your train of thought. That's not my problem and I am not interested in hearing you whine about how hard is for you.

I have repeated the point several times now. The conservatives should purge the racists, as Buckley did, instead of just ignoring them or pretending they do not exist. No, that is not Stalinesque.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Please, you are the one who is incoherent due to your inability to maintain your train of thought. That's not my problem and I am not interested in hearing you whine about how hard is for you.

I have repeated the point several times now. The conservatives should purge the racists, as Buckley did, instead of just ignoring them or pretending they do not exist. No, that is not Stalinesque.
Click to expand...

Purge BLM lol.

Then we'll think about it.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Please, you are the one who is incoherent due to your inability to maintain your train of thought. That's not my problem and I am not interested in hearing you whine about how hard is for you.

I have repeated the point several times now. The conservatives should purge the racists, as Buckley did, instead of just ignoring them or pretending they do not exist. No, that is not Stalinesque.
Click to expand...
great fantastic. a simple declarative statement - was that so difficult?
++
Q. how do "conservatives" "purge" "racists"?
It's wide open to interpretation. But since you are finally getting to the point, i'll answer the best I can.

While I am sure Trump isn't a racist I am equally as sure he's made 'racist type' statements.
Does that disqualify him from office, or part of any party?

Look at his statement about the "Mexican racists' - it's actually blaming the Mexican gov't for sending their trash over the border.
So does the use of "Mexican rapists" make him a racist? Or was he using that term to make a larger point about the
Mexican government?

Then look at his outreach in Detroit etc. You may disagree with his ideas in action,
but he is clearly saying he wants to improve education with vouchers, as well as reducing completion by illegals.
He wants to improve inner city lives.
++
So is he a racist who should be purged?

I think you are looking at too facile a test for "purging" (which is un-American- people can be shunned but we don't purge them
from joining partys.)

I think you are looking at a very narrow criteria, and imposing your perspective on a person as a whole without looking at the totality of their actions.

I can excoriate Trump on one hand because of some really poorly used language -but I can support him for Office because he has other qualifications.

( breaking the establishment stranglehold, forcing border control, deporting criminal illegals, re-negotiating NAFTA, not being Hillary, repatriation of foreign profits at reduced rates, making it difficult to outsource) and various other points

what I'm saying here is purging is extreme, probably impractical, and facile - not taking the true measure of a person's ideas.
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
As I said, I dropped out a word. The pricks I was referring to are today's REPUBLICAN pricks. Same social conservatives as the Southern Democrats back then. The party label is meaningless. They change. It's that they were conservatives.
Click to expand...

I agree, the party label is meaningless.....Democrap, DemocRat, whatever......the same worthless racist trash they've always been
 
domer76 said:
It's more inclusive than the CONSERVATIVES that now comprise the Republican Party
Click to expand...

sure.....you're inclusive......you include socialists and communists and terrorist radical supporters......and race baiters, whacko environmentalists, PETApets, the sexually confused, the illiterate, those who can't refrain from killing their children.....the emos and emus......so many tents........
 
signalmankenneth said:
CcMyFRMXEAAyOJt.jpg
Click to expand...

lol.....apparently the cartoonist didn't realize that if the KKK is burning Trump's name it would be because they hate Trump.....fitting, since its the liberals who would be wearing the hoods.......
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
There's no comparison and Romney probably lost the election on account of his remark. He didn't say the 47% were good or bad---just that they were in the tank for Obama.

And it turned out they were lol.

Hillary would piss on the working class without the courtesy of calling it rain.
Click to expand...

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's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

Sure, these things in bold were intended to illicit ambivalence.

The only thing you were right about is there being no comparison. Romney's comment was stupid because many of those 47% voted for him, he needed more, was attempting to appeal to them despite his comment and he could have gotten more. Also, while only 47% paid income tax 73% paid a payroll or income tax and most of the rest will or have paid income/payroll taxes, they just did not in the given year.

It's also rather offensive to those who paid no income taxes, many of whom were serving in combat zones, had been injured in one or are retired.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/military-pay-exclusion-combat-zone-service
http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/why-most-elderly-pay-no-federal-tax/

Hillary on the other hand does not need or want those in the basket of deplorables. As as I can tell, none but the deplorables themselves and their fellow partisans are offended.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sure.....you're inclusive......you include socialists and communists and terrorist radical supporters......and race baiters, whacko environmentalists, PETApets, the sexually confused, the illiterate, those who can't refrain from killing their children.....the emos and emus......so many tents........
Click to expand...

lol.

Get back on the meds, delusional prick. You're hallucinating.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....apparently the cartoonist didn't realize that if the KKK is burning Trump's name it would be because they hate Trump.....fitting, since its the liberals who would be wearing the hoods.......
Click to expand...

Also ignorant of the KKK cross burning ritual. Is there no bounds to your ignorance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top