LogFAQs > #904039170

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities
xp1337 06/27/18 2:03:13 AM #137:	red sox 777 posted... I would compare it to this. I wouldn't. Her point wasn't complicated and it is almost impossible for me to believe that you believe what you're saying here. She was not using coercion. She was making the claim that a subset of Trump supporters held views she found abhorrent and called that subset "deplorable." She went on to say that this subset was not a group that was persuadable because there were irreconcilable differences in worldview between them and her. It was the rest of the group that could perhaps be persuadable. Naturally, of course, the group of people who use "snowflake" and "political correctness" unironically threw a tantrum at this and distorted her message as they always do and the press, weak-willed as it is, went along with it. You can argue that this was a political mis-step on Clinton's part, certainly her backpedaling on it made it one. However that is not the lens in which I am saying she has been vindicated in. I'm saying she has been shown to be correct on the substance of what she said. Honestly, I don't even think you disagree - rather I think you'll contest my view of what she claimed or otherwise perpetuate the distortion of what she said or sidestep entirely because you seem to care more about the political outcome rather than the substantive one - ironic for someone who named "lying" as a fault he took with her. I would cite the support for some of the most abhorrent policies Trump has enacted as evidence to support the substance of what Clinton said. red sox 777 posted... None of these things needed to have happened and probably, none of them would have happened if she had won the election. I have no doubt that the majority of people are capable of doing awful things if those things are approved by authority. Except we were told what the consequences of our actions would be. Voters didn't go along with authority, they heard what their decision was and voted that choice into authority. Granted, not a plurality of voters. But enough voters in a distorted subset of American voters to decide the election. None of this was a surprise. The decision was clear. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904039170] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I would compare it to this.</quote> I wouldn't. Her point wasn't complicated and it is almost impossible for me to believe that you believe what you're saying here. She was not using coercion. She was making the claim that a subset of Trump supporters held views she found abhorrent and called that subset "deplorable." She went on to say that this subset was not a group that was persuadable because there were irreconcilable differences in worldview between them and her. It was the rest of the group that could perhaps be persuadable. Naturally, of course, the group of people who use "snowflake" and "political correctness" unironically threw a tantrum at this and distorted her message as they always do and the press, weak-willed as it is, went along with it. You can argue that this was a political mis-step on Clinton's part, certainly her backpedaling on it made it one. However that is not the lens in which I am saying she has been vindicated in. I'm saying she has been shown to be correct on the substance of what she said. Honestly, I don't even think you disagree - rather I think you'll contest my view of what she claimed or otherwise perpetuate the distortion of what she said or sidestep entirely because you seem to care more about the political outcome rather than the substantive one - ironic for someone who named "lying" as a fault he took with her. I would cite the support for some of the most abhorrent policies Trump has enacted as evidence to support the substance of what Clinton said. <cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>None of these things needed to have happened and probably, none of them would have happened if she had won the election. I have no doubt that the majority of people are capable of doing awful things if those things are approved by authority. </quote> Except we were told what the consequences of our actions would be. Voters didn't go along with authority, they heard what their decision was and voted that choice into authority. Granted, not a plurality of voters. But enough voters in a distorted subset of American voters to decide the election. None of this was a surprise. The decision was clear. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1