The real basket of deplorables.

Well, every once in a while I see a story about some poor Trump supporter being publicly assaulted, and I wonder if it belongs in the Thug Culture thread. Here’s the latest one of those other things:

We must stand firmly against such intolerance. Right?

Oh, and that Cetin guy may have been kidding when he supported Hillary. Never can tell.

Well the problem is you can’t really engage in an intelligent debate against a trump supporter with their extremely low IQ and just overall lack of any knowledge of politics, economics, fiscal policies, foreign policies, ect ect. So realistically maybe smacking some sense into one could be the only option left :smirk:

I wonder what he did to provoke such a response. Race bait, perhaps?

As for “basket of deplorables”, Hillary was being generous. It’s far more than half of Trump supporters who are deplorable.

Dumb liberals!
All this political correctness, letting him get away in one piece with his video.

Just so you know, the left has forfeited the privilege to lecture anyone about civility or tolerance or encouraging violence. You can’t have it both ways. You have ceded the moral high ground.

If and when they start beating up Bubbette supporters, not a peep. Understand?

And a note about the gun culture. I know you want to grab all the guns, and this sort of incident illustrates exactly why. But it’s not physically possible to grab all the guns, so be very careful not to push too far. People might just decide to bring a gun to your next fistfight.

It works with lab rats…

All people who don’t agree with Andrew and Chris deserve to die.

Poe’s law anybody? Also see Fundamentalism.

Lefties love to start fights. Righties love to finish them.

That’s why we need Hillary the centrist

Not surprised that the rest of the “liberals” here haven’t come out and condemned Chris and Andrew for blaming the victim. Imagine if someone had blamed a rape victim or battered housewife by either suggesting that they brought it on themselves or that maybe knocking some sense into them is the only way to get through to them; they would have come out of the woodwork then.

I think most people here are pretty non partisan. What can you say to a person that buys into 5 year old rhetoric of a giant man child. If you think building a wall and making Mexico pay for it is a sound plan. Like I literally don’t know how I can have a conversation with you.

1 Like

Does that mean that if I did happen to agree with him that you would think that “smacking some sense into me could be the only option left”?

ik obviously I’m not being serious. The point is that if you think his ideas are sound plans. There’s not much of a conversation I can have with you.

Let’s take your original statement and imagine that I had made it, but instead of Trump supporters, I had made it about another group of people, for instance blacks. How many people would have accepted my excuse that “obviously I’m not being serious”? Would you have? I doubt it. Nice try.

What you are engaging in there is a kind of motte and bailey argument, a fairly commonly used tactic by liberals. First, they propose something extreme (the bailey), but when challenged on it, they retreat to a much more “reasonable” position (the motte), claiming that they did not really mean the extreme point, and so do not have to defend it.

If you said black people had low iq and were unintelgent you would be racist. I’m talking about a group of people who buy into a simple minded rhetoric that anyone with any common sense would be able to see though. Completely different.

What you’re doing is being disingenuous yet again. I did not say anything about black IQ. I asked you to substitute “blacks” for “Trump supporters” with regard to receiving violence.

You’re saying that if person X is bigoted towards Y and threatens violence, then that’s a bad thing. When person A is bigoted towards B and threatens violence, then that’s not a bad thing. The difference being, of course, that you are actually bigoted towards X, and so you are arguing that the ends (defeating the people you don’t like) justify the means (violence).

Stop trying to move the goal posts. You argued that it was perfectly acceptable for some people to suffer violence for holding political opinions that you dislike, and now you’re back tracking and offering post hoc rationalisations for your bigotry.

It is, of course, ironic that you’re the one talking about unintelligent people, simple mindedness and common sense in all of this.

I stop listening to people that start saying liberals this liberals that. I’m a non partisan who was educated in the classics of grammar logic and rhetoric as well as studying politics, and economics in college. So I think it’s mind boggling to think that he is even considered.

What I’m saying in my first post is dark comedy in case you don’t understand. It’s meant to take it to the extreme and meant to be comedic and satiric. You must be fun watching an episode of of South Park with.

Of course you were educated in the trivium, etc. That’s why you resort to calls for violence.

Of course you’re also now claiming that you were merely trying to be funny. That’s the motte part of the motte and bailey argument right there. Nice bait and switch.

You must be fun at parties. Notice the little smirky emoji at the end. It’s meant to make light of the situation in dark comedy. It’s funny you can’t understand it.