Democrats call Americans "deplorable" & illegals "Dreamers"...that's all you need to know about Dems

[deanrd]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

No that is simply not true.

This is exactly what she said:

"The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, if you don't find those sorts of people 'deplorable', you're probably a Trump fan.

Except the Hillary has long ago proved that none of that shit bothered her, that was just shit she was saying to smear people she didn't like.

Who is Hillary?

Is she that woman who ran for president OVER A YEAR AGO?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

No that is simply not true.

This is exactly what she said:

"The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, if you don't find those sorts of people 'deplorable', you're probably a Trump fan.

Except the Hillary has long ago proved that none of that shit bothered her, that was just shit she was saying to smear people she didn't like.

How do you 'smear' a homophobe?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

No that is simply not true.

This is exactly what she said:

"The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, if you don't find those sorts of people 'deplorable', you're probably a Trump fan.

In other words, those who don't support the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of innocent unborn children every day, those who don't support the perverted and immoral LGBpbiWTF agenda, those who don't support the violent criminal Black Lies Matter thugs, those who don't support violent Islamist terrorists, and those who believe that this nation should protect its borders against invading foreign criminals. Mainstream, honest, decent Americans, who stand for basic morality, decency, and common sense. We are your “deplorables”. And making it as clear as you did that you are not on our side is how your side so badly lost the 2016 elections.; and how you will continue to lose elections.

Your side openly takes the side of criminals, terrorist, perverts, and other subhuman filth, and then calls us “deplorables” for opposing you on that basis.

May you continue with this strategy, and may it continue to produce the same results.

 

[Pogo]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

WRONG.

Roll tape.

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

"Half of Rump's supporters".

Who are "Rump's supporters"? How do we count them? Absent any better method we could count those who eventually voted for him ---- even though that would be way too generous given the volume of voters who voted for either candidate for no other reason than to block the other one, who really can't be called "supporters". But while we know that slice of the vote is significant, we have no way to count it, so we ignore it and include all of Rump's voters, which was 46% of the vote.

Now what was the voter base relative to eligible registered voters? The turnout was 55%, a figure that most countries with elections would be mortified by but normal for us. 45% of registered voters looked at the choices and said "what's the point?" and stayed home or did something else.

55% of 46% equals 25%. That's how many registered voters voted for Rump --- 25% of them.

Then there are unregisterded eligible voters -- those who could be registered but didn't bother. Another 30% of those eligible, not registered, meaning seven-tenths of those who could vote, registered to. And that figure is rounded up.

Seven-tenths of 25% and we're down to 17.5% of all eligible voters -- the entire body of everyone who could vote for Rump if they wanted to. 17.5% of that body.

Back to the original quote: "half of Trump's supporters"

One-half of 17.5% is 8.75%. And that figure is way high.

1. It is absurd to pretend that all of Trump's supporters actually voted. Right there, you are playing dishonest game with the numbers.

We know that's not an accurate measure. We also know that it's absurd to pretend that all of Rump's voters did so out of support, rather than to block the tic tac toe game we call the Electrical College.

I already pointed this out. Repeatedly. Learn to read.

2. Your assumption that people who did not vote did not support Trump is unsupported and stupid.

You just restated the same thing you said in number one and put the number 2 before it, which again was already addressed in the post you quoted before you posted any of this, so yeah tell us all about "stupid".

3. A truly reasonable assumption would be to assume that the non voters broke down approximately like the voters.

Hey, if they didn't bother to vote, how 'supportive" are they? Nomsayin'?

4. And if you smear HALF of a group, you smear the whole group, because every member is either A. 50% like to be "deplorable" or B. at least comfortable with being allied with "deplorables"

So "half" doesn't mean "half" if you wish it meant "all"?

Interesting planet..

That's a huge slice of America that Hillary smeared.

Why it's 8.75% of those who could vote. YUGE.

The op is reasonable. Far more so than you, or your numbers game.

Where are my numbers off?

"The OP is reasonable" is it? You're actually going to sit on the intenet and claim that "all Democrats" is the same as "Hillary Clinton"? You're actually going to sit here on the internets and claim that 8.75% of all eligible voters is the same as "all Americans"?

But **MY** numbers are off, right?

Have you ever had an EEG?

 

[Correll]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

No that is simply not true.

This is exactly what she said:

"The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, if you don't find those sorts of people 'deplorable', you're probably a Trump fan.

Except the Hillary has long ago proved that none of that shit bothered her, that was just shit she was saying to smear people she didn't like.

Who is Hillary?

Is she that woman who ran for president OVER A YEAR AGO?

You people stood by her when she made her hateful and divisive statement, and make similar hateful and divisive statements all the time.


Your pretense otherwise, is laughed at and dismissed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Which natural-born Americans do you think anyone is calling “illegals”? Who do you claim are being called “illegals” who are not, in fact, in this country illegally?

Ones who were born here. That's what "natural born" means.

Who is describing people who were born in this country, and who are thus natural born citizens thereof, as “illegals”?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You can see by the left degrading the obvious in this thread they do think of us citizens as deplorable and think of the illegals as the better of the two groups. How many times do you need to be told they are citizens in spirit that would be better than you if they had citizenship. They will do jobs you won't do and somehow they are better employees, people and more beneficial to the US than you are. Without illegals somehow the entire nation is going to die off.

To the democrats you really are a deplorable second rate citizen. The illegals actually sit above you in priority and worth.

 

[Correll]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

WRONG.

Roll tape.

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

"Half of Rump's supporters".

Who are "Rump's supporters"? How do we count them? Absent any better method we could count those who eventually voted for him ---- even though that would be way too generous given the volume of voters who voted for either candidate for no other reason than to block the other one, who really can't be called "supporters". But while we know that slice of the vote is significant, we have no way to count it, so we ignore it and include all of Rump's voters, which was 46% of the vote.

Now what was the voter base relative to eligible registered voters? The turnout was 55%, a figure that most countries with elections would be mortified by but normal for us. 45% of registered voters looked at the choices and said "what's the point?" and stayed home or did something else.

55% of 46% equals 25%. That's how many registered voters voted for Rump --- 25% of them.

Then there are unregisterded eligible voters -- those who could be registered but didn't bother. Another 30% of those eligible, not registered, meaning seven-tenths of those who could vote, registered to. And that figure is rounded up.

Seven-tenths of 25% and we're down to 17.5% of all eligible voters -- the entire body of everyone who could vote for Rump if they wanted to. 17.5% of that body.

Back to the original quote: "half of Trump's supporters"

One-half of 17.5% is 8.75%. And that figure is way high.

1. It is absurd to pretend that all of Trump's supporters actually voted. Right there, you are playing dishonest game with the numbers.

We know that's not an accurate measure. We also know that it's absurd to pretend that all of Rump's voters did so out of support, rather than to block the tic tac toe game we call the Electrical College.

I already pointed this out. Repeatedly. Learn to read.

And the other side of that is that plenty of supporters did not vote, often for similar Electoral College reasons also.

2. Your assumption that people who did not vote did not support Trump is unsupported and stupid.

You just restated the same thing you said in number one and put the number 2 before it, which again was already addressed in the post you quoted before you posted any of this, so yeah tell us all about "stupid".

3. A truly reasonable assumption would be to assume that the non voters broke down approximately like the voters.

Hey, if they didn't bother to vote, how 'supportive" are they? Nomsayin'?[/QUOTE]


COuld be very. You don't know them or their situation. Some Trump supporter in California, where he knows that his vote will never outweigh the millions of "Americans" in LA, yeah, he's going to have a real hard time being motivated to vote, no matter how much he likes Trump.

4. And if you smear HALF of a group, you smear the whole group, because every member is either A. 50% like to be "deplorable" or B. at least comfortable with being allied with "deplorables"

So "half" doesn't mean "half" if you wish it meant "all"?

Interesting planet..[/QUOTE]


You say that someone is 50% likely to be a "Deplorable" and that is a pretty serious smear. If I said something like that about blacks or any other minority, you lefties would have no problem seeing that I was smearing the whole group.


AND, the other option is that that someone is only happy to be allied with such "deplorable" people.


Stop pretending that you didn't see or understand my reasoning. Do it again, and the only reasonable assumption is that you know you can not refute it.


And I win.

That's a huge slice of America that Hillary smeared.

Why it's 8.75% of those who could vote. YUGE.

The op is reasonable. Far more so than you, or your numbers game.

Where are my numbers off?

"The OP is reasonable" is it? You're actually going to sit on the intenet and claim that "all Democrats" is the same as "Hillary Clinton"? You're actually going to sit here on the internets and claim that 8.75% of all eligible voters is the same as "all Americans"?

But **MY** numbers are off, right?

Have you ever had an EEG?[/QUOTE]




I pointed out two good points where your numbers were off. YOu failed to refute either of them so they stand.


Hillary is a piece of shit for her divisive attack on the large percentage of Americans who were against her.


And you lefties by and large, fully supported her in her vile behavior.


And that is on you.


Unless you were one of the very few libs that called her out on her vile bullshit?

 

[Seawytch]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

WRONG.

Roll tape.

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

"Half of Rump's supporters".

Who are "Rump's supporters"? How do we count them? Absent any better method we could count those who eventually voted for him ---- even though that would be way too generous given the volume of voters who voted for either candidate for no other reason than to block the other one, who really can't be called "supporters". But while we know that slice of the vote is significant, we have no way to count it, so we ignore it and include all of Rump's voters, which was 46% of the vote.

Now what was the voter base relative to eligible registered voters? The turnout was 55%, a figure that most countries with elections would be mortified by but normal for us. 45% of registered voters looked at the choices and said "what's the point?" and stayed home or did something else.

55% of 46% equals 25%. That's how many registered voters voted for Rump --- 25% of them.

Then there are unregisterded eligible voters -- those who could be registered but didn't bother. Another 30% of those eligible, not registered, meaning seven-tenths of those who could vote, registered to. And that figure is rounded up.

Seven-tenths of 25% and we're down to 17.5% of all eligible voters -- the entire body of everyone who could vote for Rump if they wanted to. 17.5% of that body.

Back to the original quote: "half of Trump's supporters"

One-half of 17.5% is 8.75% of all eligible voters. And that figure is way high owing to the conundrum of how to define "supporters" -- we're actually counting not "supporters" but "voters".

AND all of that is taking "half" literally rather than the "grossly generalistic" sense in which it was introduced right there in the quote.

All of that aside, zero % of those numbers represent "those who didn't support her" since she wasn't even talking about that.

In any case the point STANDS. There is no way the subject of that quote even at 8.75% can be morphed into "Americans" ---- which would have included the speaker herself. Just as there is no way that a single person named "Hillary Clinton" can be morphed into the entire body of "Democrats".

Supported by data

Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

 

[Correll]

If you don't think the kind of people that were called 'deplorable' are deplorable, then you don't belong here.

As the term was first famously used, it referred pretty much to all mainstream Americans who didn't support the insane and destructive Democratic agenda. Mrs. Clinton described those who didn't support her as a “basket of deplorables”.

WRONG.

Roll tape.

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

"Half of Rump's supporters".

Who are "Rump's supporters"? How do we count them? Absent any better method we could count those who eventually voted for him ---- even though that would be way too generous given the volume of voters who voted for either candidate for no other reason than to block the other one, who really can't be called "supporters". But while we know that slice of the vote is significant, we have no way to count it, so we ignore it and include all of Rump's voters, which was 46% of the vote.

Now what was the voter base relative to eligible registered voters? The turnout was 55%, a figure that most countries with elections would be mortified by but normal for us. 45% of registered voters looked at the choices and said "what's the point?" and stayed home or did something else.

55% of 46% equals 25%. That's how many registered voters voted for Rump --- 25% of them.

Then there are unregisterded eligible voters -- those who could be registered but didn't bother. Another 30% of those eligible, not registered, meaning seven-tenths of those who could vote, registered to. And that figure is rounded up.

Seven-tenths of 25% and we're down to 17.5% of all eligible voters -- the entire body of everyone who could vote for Rump if they wanted to. 17.5% of that body.

Back to the original quote: "half of Trump's supporters"

One-half of 17.5% is 8.75% of all eligible voters. And that figure is way high owing to the conundrum of how to define "supporters" -- we're actually counting not "supporters" but "voters".

AND all of that is taking "half" literally rather than the "grossly generalistic" sense in which it was introduced right there in the quote.

All of that aside, zero % of those numbers represent "those who didn't support her" since she wasn't even talking about that.

In any case the point STANDS. There is no way the subject of that quote even at 8.75% can be morphed into "Americans" ---- which would have included the speaker herself. Just as there is no way that a single person named "Hillary Clinton" can be morphed into the entire body of "Democrats".

Supported by data

Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

Link requires a subscription.


YOu really should not say such divisive shit, without cutting and pasting some serious back up.

 

[Pogo]

<content deleted for massive quote fuckups>

Hillary is a piece of shit for her divisive attack on the large percentage of Americans who were against her.


And you lefties by and large, fully supported her in her vile behavior.


And that is on you.


Unless you were one of the very few libs that called her out on her vile bullshit?

What you THINK of the comment in that train wreck of fucked-up quotes, is IRRELEVANT.

I pointed out, and PROVED, that 8.75% of the eligiible voting population cannot on any planet be equated to all Americans ---- which AGAIN IF IT DID WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE SPEAKER HERSELF.

And there ain't a damn thing in the world you can do about that.

But you go on Sniffles and try to tell the class how the title here makes a damn lick of sense.

 

[Correll]

<content deleted for massive quote fuckups>

Hillary is a piece of shit for her divisive attack on the large percentage of Americans who were against her.


And you lefties by and large, fully supported her in her vile behavior.


And that is on you.


Unless you were one of the very few libs that called her out on her vile bullshit?

What you THINK of the comment in that train wreck of fucked-up quotes, is IRRELEVANT.

I pointed out, and PROVED, that 8.75% of the eligiible voting population cannot on any planet be equated to all Americans ---- which AGAIN IF IT DID WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE SPEAKER HERSELF.

And there ain't a damn thing in the world you can do about that.

But you go on Sniffles and try to tell the class how the title here makes a damn lick of sense.

It is absurd to think that Trump won the Presidency with the support of less than 9% of the US population.


Your position is a joke.


Made only pathetic by the fact that you are serious.


HIllary was smearing half the country and the half that is the more Traditional American Half.

 

[Pogo]

It is absurd to think that Trump won the Presidency with the support of less than 9% of the US population.

No, not less than 9% of the US population ---- less than 9% of its eligible voters. The percentage of the whole population would be smaller still.

And yes, of course it's absurd. NO SHIT. Welcome to our world.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ones who were born here. That's what "natural born" means.

Who is describing such people as “illegals”?

Ones who were born here. That's what "natural born" means.

Who is describing people who were born in this country, and who are thus natural born citizens thereof, as “illegals”?

<crickets/>

I guess, having been caught in a bald-faced lie, Pogo lacks the guts to come and back it up.

[ATTACH=full]173886[/ATTACH]

 

[Pogo]

Ones who were born here. That's what "natural born" means.

Who is describing such people as “illegals”?

Ones who were born here. That's what "natural born" means.

Who is describing people who were born in this country, and who are thus natural born citizens thereof, as “illegals”?

<crickets/>

I guess, having been caught in a bald-faced lie, Pogo lacks the guts to come and back it up.

[ATTACH=full]173886[/ATTACH]

ummm.....might want to read back there Evelyn Wood. I covered that in my first post and then explained what "natural born" means in the second. Hate to disturb you while you're jerking off but it's back there, and this thread ain't my only thing to do. Too bad if it's yours.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Democrats call Americans "deplorable" & illegals "Dreamers"...that's all you need to know about Dems

OP morphs a single person into an entire poitical party en masse, then morphs her subject from half of Rump's supporters into the entire country, then morphs natural-born Americans into "illegals", manages to get all of those fallacies into a single thread title, and that's all you need to know about the OP.

/thread

I've seen wrestling take downs but that was Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime doing a body slam on Herve Villechaize. What's next, how to toss Mini Me through an open skylight?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

ummm.....might want to read back there Evelyn Wood. I covered that in my first post and then explained what "natural born" means in the second.

In post #2 of this very thread, you claimed…

OP…morphs natural-born Americans into "illegals"…

How is the OP doing any such thing? Who is the OP calling “illegals” who are not, in fact, here illegally? Where is the OP applying the term “illegals” to those who were born in this country and are citizens thereof?

 

[Correll]

It is absurd to think that Trump won the Presidency with the support of less than 9% of the US population.

No, not less than 9% of the US population ---- less than 9% of its eligible voters. The percentage of the whole population would be smaller still.

And yes, of course it's absurd. NO SHIT. Welcome to our world.

You are deluding yourself. HE got the votes of 46 % of the voters, and I've seen nothing that indicates that the non voters are significantly different from the voters.

 

[Kondor3]

I refuse to call them "dreamers." If Trump caves on this, he's making the mistake Reagan made.

"Beaner Babies" ???