"What Happend to Her Husband?"

[ozso]

They are supporting a bad person. That's the overwhelming message we repeat ad nauseum.

ad nauseum indeed.

But you don't think he's a bad person

I've never said that he's a bad person or a good person.

and you let him get away

I'm not his keeper.

with and excuse bad things.

What bad things have I excused?

 

[rambot]

ad nauseum indeed.

Yes.

I've never said that he's a bad person or a good person.

Yes. That's a problem.

What bad things have I excused?

I don't know but I imagine the list is expansive since I haven't seen you acknowledge the terrible things he's done.
And in this thread you said that you prefer to keep your eyes on his critics than on him.

 

[ozso]

Meh. There are SEGMENTS of the population who we would both find to be pretty awful. There are left leaning people i'd describe as awful too. There are Trump supporters that I JUST disagree with. But there are also Trump supporters who are awful and kind of disgusting.

Sorry to blow your mind. There's biden supporters who are disgusting too. BEHAVIOURS are what dictate that; not the letter behind the name.

I tend to go by the overall ideology of leftism, liberalism, wokeism et al. It's really more a matter of those isms than the misguided people who get sucked in.

 

[ozso]

Yes.

Yes. That's a problem.

Not really when that's not really what I'm addressing.

I don't know but I imagine the list is expansive since I haven't seen you acknowledge the terrible things he's done.

Such as?

And in this thread you said that you prefer to keep your eyes on his critics than on him.

My opinion of the ideology and mindset generated by the leftism, liberalism, wokeism people get sucked into, doesn't really have anything to do with Trump per se. It would still be there if he had remained a reality show personality.

 

[ozso]

At this point, I've gotten enough warnings to be able to avoid stepping on that particular mine.

You missed my edit: Actually strike that. It's the overall prevailing things said by many.

 

[DaisyDay]

I was never talking about you in the first place.

Then why did you quote my post as though you were replying to me?

You take comments I make about millions of people all around the world and all over the internet to be about you personally, and then you get personal in response. That's the problem.

No, the problem is making scurrilous comments in a reply to a post, then declaring that your reply had nothing to do with the post or the poster quoted. I have no idea why you think "millions of people all around the world" think that you are scum as you claim, but if that's true, maybe investigate the claim for validity? I mean, that's a lot of people thinking you're scum for no apparent (to you evidently) reason.

I don't know why you're complaining to me - what do you expect me to do about it when it has nothing to do with me: "I was never talking about you in the first place."

 

[DaisyDay]

All of this is Hilary Clinton's fault. She called Trump's followers "deplorable." She should have known better. You can call your political opponent every kind of evil, but you never, never insult his supporters--after all, you want them to become your supporters, don't you? They won't ever become your supporters if you insult them. But no, she had to call them deplorable. Not only that, she called them deplorable for their most deeply held values, in some cases what they considered Christian values. Now all they want is revenge. Trump has promised them revenge and they will let him do anything he thinks he has to to get it for them

What's perhaps more grievous is that she only included half thus denying the other half their share of outrage.

 

[Belk]

It's really more all those who took it way beyond what she said. Collectively it reminds me of things the Nazis said about the Jews. They're deplorable, disgusting, sickening, inferior; basically the scum of the earth.

I don't recall "deplorable". I do recall "invaders", "Vermin", "Leeches".

 

[ozso]

Then why did you quote my post as though you were replying to me?

Replying to you, yes. Making it about you, no.

Ceallaigh said:
I saw to way too many attacks on Donald's wife and even his minor child to take a lot of the left's sanctimonious indignation too seriously.

No, the problem is making scurrilous comments in a reply to a post, then declaring that your reply had nothing to do with the post or the poster quoted. I have no idea why you think "millions of people all around the world" think that you are scum as you claim, but if that's true, maybe investigate the claim for validity? I mean, that's a lot of people thinking you're scum for no apparent (to you evidently) reason.

It's not about me.

I don't know why you're complaining to me - what do you expect me to do about it when it has nothing to do with me: "I was never talking about you in the first place."

I wasn't talking about you, until you made it about you. If, and that's a big if now, I ever respond to one of your replies to me in the future, I'll have to remember to make a clear disclaimer that it's not about you. Or me for that matter.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't recall "deplorable". I do recall "invaders", "Vermin", "Leeches".

"baby killers" "groomers" (though I think "groomers" came after "deplorables")

 

[KCfromNC]

Neither one of them will have a next time.

Cardi B isn't that old. Heck, is she even old enough to run for president yet?

 

[ozso]

I don't recall "deplorable". I do recall "invaders", "Vermin", "Leeches".

Invaders and leeches is pretty accurate regarding those who illegally come into a county to draw off its resources. I'd have to see a citation of "vermin" being used to comment on it.

 

[ozso]

"baby killers" "groomers" (though I think "groomers" came after "deplorables")

Kinda hard for abortion to exist without babies being killed. "Grooming" is purposely misconstrued as grooming a child to be sexually abused, when the term is being used in reference to ideological indoctrination.

 

[rambot]

Not really when that's not really what I'm addressing.

Sigh.

The problem is you are not addressing it.

Such as?

1. Honestly, if you can't even identify them on your own, that is ALSO a problem.

2. I've listed them twice in this thread,

3. Remember how we complain about his actions? Those ones.

My opinion of the ideology and mindset generated by the leftism, liberalism, wokeism people get sucked into, doesn't really have anything to do with Trump per se. It would still be there if he had remained a reality show personality.

To some extent, I'd agree, but not quite. Trump is malignant, I just disagree with Republicans.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Grooming" is purposely misconstrued as grooming a child to be sexually abused, when the term is being used in reference to ideological indoctrination.

Wait, you think it's libs who are purposefully misconstruing the definition of that word? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[rambot]

"Grooming" is purposely misconstrued as grooming a child to be sexually abused, when the term is being used in reference to ideological indoctrination.

Well, except when trans people were grooming children to hurt and abuse them. Heard that a bunch.

Invaders and leeches is pretty accurate...

But Democrats are the Nazis of course right?


Because NOTHING says Nazis like supporting transgender youth, accepting immigrants and valuing diversity.

 

[rambot]

Listen, the guy posting this isn't "deplorable", he just does deplorable things.

Like lying to foment anti-immigration sentiment and xenophobia.

Apparently it is a common tactic to use that EXACT NAME with many events that are then used to blame illegal immigration.
using the name Omar Sahil in an attempt to tie this event to illegal immigration.

Blast at historic Texas hotel is being investigated as a natural gas explosion, no suspect is being sought

But yes....only DOING deplorable things. They themselves, not deplorable.

 

[DaisyDay]

Replying to you, yes. Making it about you, no.

Well, it's odd that you would reply to me about that which had nothing to do with what I had posted. Why bother to quote me when you are not referring to that post or to me?

Ceallaigh said:
I saw to way too many attacks on Donald's wife and even his minor child to take a lot of the left's sanctimonious indignation too seriously.

Since this is not actually addressed to me and you claim that it does not refer to anything in my post, why spew anti-leftist comments randomly somewhat in my direction.

It's not about me.

I assume that your opinion is your own.

I wasn't talking about you, until you made it about you.

Okay, but if you don't mean me, then why include my post as if you were actually replying to something I said? Since you now insist that the post was just generic dissing of leftists, you should realize that when you direct such dissing at me I will take it to mean me. Me is is personal to me.

If, and that's a big if now, I ever respond to one of your replies to me in the future, I'll have to remember to make a clear disclaimer that it's not about you. Or me for that matter.

Oh gosh golly gee! Big IF: I hope you will manage to be clear about your subject and point.

 

[Belk]

Invaders and leeches is pretty accurate regarding those who illegally come into a county to draw off its resources.

Yup. Nothing wrong with comparing desperate people to slimy parasites.

I'd have to see a citation of "vermin" being used to comment on it.

Which one do you want? The one from Hitler or the one from Trump?

 

[essentialsaltes]

All of this is Hilary Clinton's fault. She called Trump's followers "deplorable."

FWIW, it was only half of them.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.