"Basket of Deplorables" or How the Beauty of Language Dies.

[beero1000]

Let's just stop with these false equivocations, shall we? Trump was the worst candidate in history, by a country mile. His election represents an unprecedented danger to the entire world, and everyone who voted for him will have to answer for that.

:laughing-smiley-014

Both of those fucking candidates were atrocious. I find it amazing how both of them had brain dead followers who could see no faults in their chosen demagogue and actually praised them. Propaganda and demization proved to be damned effective for both.

This is like saying that 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth is spherical' are both wrong. I mean, let's get a little perspective here. Clinton may not have been the strongest candidate, but she wouldn't be starting international conflicts left and right, even before inauguration...

 

[LordKiran]

Let's just stop with these false equivocations, shall we? Trump was the worst candidate in history, by a country mile. His election represents an unprecedented danger to the entire world, and everyone who voted for him will have to answer for that.

:laughing-smiley-014

Both of those fucking candidates were atrocious. I find it amazing how both of them had brain dead followers who could see no faults in their chosen demagogue and actually praised them. Propaganda and demization proved to be damned effective for both.

I don't think it's fair to call Hillary a demagogue at all. The word means a political leader who ran a populist campaign which incited the common rabble against the status quo by playing to their fears and prejudices. Who does that REALLY sound like?

 

[Warpoet]

I hear the same shit from the dedicated followers on both extremes.. and with the same "justification".

So what? Maybe instead of taking the easy way out and assuming that this means that both sides are equally bad, you should try examining the available evidence.

 

[dismal]

When people say both candidates were just as bad, the question I keep thinking is "Just as bad at what?"

Were they both just as bad at understanding and addressing domestic policy issues, working with members of Congress, formulating a coherent, forward-looking foreign policy, making wise decisions wrt staff and government appointees, and all the other things a President is expected to do at least competently if not extremely well?

Or were they both just as bad at winning a particular person's vote?

I think the former is heavily implied but in reality it's the latter. They were both just as bad at appealing to individual voters.

Yeah, it's not fair to say they were both just as bad. Trump won despite spending far less money. Obviously he was better.

 

[Trausti]

When people say both candidates were just as bad, the question I keep thinking is "Just as bad at what?"

Were they both just as bad at understanding and addressing domestic policy issues, working with members of Congress, formulating a coherent, forward-looking foreign policy, making wise decisions wrt staff and government appointees, and all the other things a President is expected to do at least competently if not extremely well?

Or were they both just as bad at winning a particular person's vote?

I think the former is heavily implied but in reality it's the latter. They were both just as bad at appealing to individual voters.

Yeah, it's not fair to say they were both just as bad. Trump won despite spending far less money. Obviously he was better.

It's odd that the "get money out of politics" and "prosecute Wall Street" crowd backed the candidate with millions more in campaign dollars and was the darling of Wall Street. Maybe they really didn't care about those things after all.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hear the same shit from the dedicated followers on both extremes.. and with the same "justification".

So what? Maybe instead of taking the easy way out and assuming that this means that both sides are equally bad, you should try examining the available evidence.

I didn't say they were equally bad. I said they were both atrocious. I also did examine the available evidence and determined that they were atrocious but in different ways. What I did find rather amusing about the dedicated supporters of both is that any time it was pointed out how atrocious their chosen candidate was they ranted about how bad the other candidate is rather than pointing out how great their candidate is.

At least, among themselves the Trump supporters thought they had good reasons to vote for him, "he was going to drain the swamp". The primary reason I heard from Clinton supporters to vote for Clinton wasn't a positive vote for Clinton but a vote against Trump, "Trump is evil, we have to defeat him"

 

[Shadowy Man]

At least, among themselves the Trump supporters thought they had good reasons to vote for him, "he was going to drain the swamp". The primary reason I heard from Clinton supporters to vote for Clinton wasn't a positive vote for Clinton but a vote against Trump, "Trump is evil, we have to defeat him".

Some of us thought Clinton would follow on with some of what Obama had done, and we actually like that. So that was a reason to vote *for* her. But yes, a strong motivation for me was voting against Trump. I never thought Clinton was the best Democratic nominee, even back in 2008. I had originally hoped that Biden would run. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld: "you go to the election with the candidate you have, not the one you might want or wish to have".

As for voting *for* Trump, I hope that his supporters will quickly see that he's a con man and that he has no intention of "draining the swamp" and has no ability to bring back coal and manufacturing jobs that have gone away due to modernization, automation, and globalization not due to the specific actions of any President.

 

[Trausti]

At least, among themselves the Trump supporters thought they had good reasons to vote for him, "he was going to drain the swamp". The primary reason I heard from Clinton supporters to vote for Clinton wasn't a positive vote for Clinton but a vote against Trump, "Trump is evil, we have to defeat him".

And also because she's a woman. Which is important. Unless that woman is Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, or Meg Whitman. Then vaginas are not important.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, it's not fair to say they were both just as bad. Trump won despite spending far less money. Obviously he was better.

True if you don't include Trump's free advertising from the media. Add the value of that and Trump advertised much more than did Clinton.

 

[fromderinside]

I didn't say they were equally bad. I said they were both atrocious. I also did examine the available evidence and determined that they were atrocious but in different ways. What I did find rather amusing about the dedicated supporters of both is that any time it was pointed out how atrocious their chosen candidate was they ranted about how bad the other candidate is rather than pointing out how great their candidate is.

'Both atrocious' and 'both ranted' are classifying comments implying equality in category. 'atrocious' also suggests 'bad'. So yes you did say both were equally bad.

It's important in communicating to communicate rather than smear one or the other under cover of being 'fair', else you aren't communicating but rather propagandizing. Looks to me you did smear both Clinton and her ardent supporters with racist, antisemitic, hatemonger, and bully, which is what even fair minded media found among Trump supporters and very little among Clinton supporters.

 

[Trausti]

I didn't say they were equally bad. I said they were both atrocious. I also did examine the available evidence and determined that they were atrocious but in different ways. What I did find rather amusing about the dedicated supporters of both is that any time it was pointed out how atrocious their chosen candidate was they ranted about how bad the other candidate is rather than pointing out how great their candidate is.

'Both atrocious' and 'both ranted' are classifying comments implying equality in category. 'atrocious' also suggests 'bad'. So yes you did say both were equally bad.

It's important in communicating to communicate rather than smear one or the other under cover of being 'fair', else you aren't communicating but rather propagandizing. Looks to me you did smear both Clinton and her ardent supporters with racist, antisemitic, hatemonger, and bully, which is what even fair minded media found among Trump supporters and very little among Clinton supporters.

This has to stop. This idea that we’re all ... that our team is perfect and the other team is demons. And this is not like a Kumbaya, let’s all get along.

Let’s fucking fight, but let’s fight with precision and integrity, and not with just demonization.

And I’ll say this, I know a lot of first responders. I spent a lot of time in that community. A shitload of them voted for Trump. The same people that voted for Trump ran into burning buildings and saved whoever the fuck they could no matter what color they were, no matter what religion and they would do it again tomorrow. So, if you want to sit and tell me that those people are giving tacit approval to an exploitative system ― I say, “OK, and would you put your life on the line for people who aren’t like you? Because they did.” I get mad about this stuff.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, it's not fair to say they were both just as bad. Trump won despite spending far less money. Obviously he was better.

True if you don't include Trump's free advertising from the media. Add the value of that and Trump advertised much more than did Clinton.

Yes, I must have forgotten how Trump was such a media darling. All those newspaper endorsements and such.

 

[Elixir]

True if you don't include Trump's free advertising from the media. Add the value of that and Trump advertised much more than did Clinton.

Yes, I must have forgotten how Trump was such a media darling. All those newspaper endorsements and such.

Billions of dollars worth of "there's no such thing as bad" publicity later... it would be hard to argue that Trump wasn't a media darling. He was their ratings cash cow for over a year.
They also helped push his fake news stories. Despite the aghast expressions on the talking heads when they exclaimed stuff like "Trump claims - with absolutely no evidence - that Hillary eats babies for breakfast", all that his half-wit supporters heard was "Hillary eats babies for breakfast".

 

[fromderinside]

True if you don't include Trump's free advertising from the media. Add the value of that and Trump advertised much more than did Clinton.

Yes, I must have forgotten how Trump was such a media darling. All those newspaper endorsements and such.

...like Elixir wrote ....

 

[dismal]

Yes, I must have forgotten how Trump was such a media darling. All those newspaper endorsements and such.

Billions of dollars worth of "there's no such thing as bad" publicity later... it would be hard to argue that Trump wasn't a media darling. He was their ratings cash cow for over a year.
They also helped push his fake news stories. Despite the aghast expressions on the talking heads when they exclaimed stuff like "Trump claims - with absolutely no evidence - that Hillary eats babies for breakfast", all that his half-wit supporters heard was "Hillary eats babies for breakfast".

Oh, I see. This must be why I am always hearing Democrats saying how much Comey and the Russian email hacks helped Hillary by keeping her in the news and stuff.

 

[fromderinside]

Riiight. It was Trump talking points being reinforced by those critters. Our point exactly.

 

[dismal]

Riiight. It was Trump talking points being reinforced by those critters. Our point exactly.

But still, free news coverage for Hillary. No wonder Democrats love Comey for blatantly trying to help her win.

 

[Elixir]

Riiight. It was Trump talking points being reinforced by those critters. Our point exactly.

But still, free news coverage for Hillary. No wonder Democrats love Comey for blatantly trying to help her win.

Nope. There's quite a difference. If you don't get it, you might have to look up some campaign-era archived shows from CNN/MSNBC. it comes off like "Trump this, Trump that, Trump says, Trump Trump Trump Trump - Hillary under investigation again Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ... case re-opened ... Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ..." ad nauseum.

The fact that Trump is such an unhesitating, natural liar helped him a lot as well. Hillary, not be quite as well practiced, didn't come right out and scream "Lies, lies lies!" every time she was confronted. Even if she had, there was so much baggage on her back that it would only have elicited complaints about her being "shrill". Trump had no qualms about it though, and his trumpsuckers ate it up, as he knew they would. Hillary ended up looking ridiculous; like a prom queen standing in a pig sty getting splattered with shit, while the crowds cheered for the pig.

And I really think that's a fair analogy. When I'd point out Trump's lies to supporters I know, they'd recite - almost as if by training - "well, that's just Trump". Even his own campaign managers did that.

 

[laughing dog]

But still, free news coverage for Hillary. No wonder Democrats love Comey for blatantly trying to help her win.

Nope. There's quite a difference. If you don't get it, you might have to look up some campaign-era archived shows from CNN/MSNBC. it comes off like "Trump this, Trump that, Trump says, Trump Trump Trump Trump - Hillary under investigation again Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ... case re-opened ... Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ..." ad nauseum.

The fact that Trump is such an unhesitating, natural liar helped him a lot as well. Hillary, not be quite as well practiced, didn't come right out and scream "Lies, lies lies!" every time she was confronted. Even if she had, there was so much baggage on her back that it would only have elicited complaints about her being "shrill". Trump had no qualms about it though, and his trumpsuckers ate it up, as he knew they would. Hillary ended up looking ridiculous; like a prom queen standing in a pig sty getting splattered with shit, while the crowds cheered for the pig.

You don't realize it yet, but you are responding to a functional equivalent of   Tommy_(album)".

 

[whichphilosophy]

But still, free news coverage for Hillary. No wonder Democrats love Comey for blatantly trying to help her win.

Nope. There's quite a difference. If you don't get it, you might have to look up some campaign-era archived shows from CNN/MSNBC. it comes off like "Trump this, Trump that, Trump says, Trump Trump Trump Trump - Hillary under investigation again Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ... case re-opened ... Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump ..." ad nauseum.

The fact that Trump is such an unhesitating, natural liar helped him a lot as well. Hillary, not be quite as well practiced, didn't come right out and scream "Lies, lies lies!" every time she was confronted. Even if she had, there was so much baggage on her back that it would only have elicited complaints about her being "shrill". Trump had no qualms about it though, and his trumpsuckers ate it up, as he knew they would. Hillary ended up looking ridiculous; like a prom queen standing in a pig sty getting splattered with shit, while the crowds cheered for the pig.

And I really think that's a fair analogy. When I'd point out Trump's lies to supporters I know, they'd recite - almost as if by training - "well, that's just Trump". Even his own campaign managers did that.

I thought CNN is the Clinton News Network. Fox news was Trump's and of course Trump TV is pro Trump.