trump is the culmination of decades of republicans pandering to ignorance, racism and evangelicals. the GOP thought they could manipulate these people into voting for them and it worked for awhile, but post-bush, with the emergence of the tea party movement they lost control of them as voters...and thus they got trump thrust upon them. you reap what you sow, punks!
You make a claim. The onus is on you to defend that claim with evidence. What exactly am I stating that is unreasonable? All I'm asking is for an explicit quote that you can cite that supports your assertions.. Otherwise you have nothing besides vague platitudes. Why should anyone believe your vague platitudes? Hey, maybe I'm being too obtuse and her statements are so obvious that it's beyond ridiculous for someone to ask a question with such an obvious answer but on the flip side, if it really is that obvious, for sure it must be not that difficult for you to find a quote or a string of quotes. I'm not even asking for a quote that directly states your assertions. Even a quote that implies what you are asserting about Hillary will be fine because at least there is an objective starting point to start a debate/discussion from. Otherwise it's just people flinging poo at each other with vague unverified assertions.
You keep using that word. I don't think that it means what you think that it means. Platitudes are phrases that have been used so often that they no longer are interesting or thoughtful. If he posted that every dog has its day, that would be a platitude. Synonyms include cliche and truism. If something isn't a common, well known saying, it isn't a platitude. Posting accusations like Obama is divisive or Hillary blamed the attack on the Benghazi embassy on a youtube video are not platitudes. You can criticize his lack of evidence, but your word choice is inappropriate. Normally I wouldn't mention it, but you are doing it over and over.
"Obama is divisive" "Hillary is divisive" Yup, sounds like vague notions that are often repeated by many half-wits with no explicit evidence or quotations. Hence platitudes. I'm using the term accurately. You just disagree that these statements are repeated with no spine of support evidence. Again, you can make these vague assertions into explicit nuanced claims with something as simple as quotations but posters like you keep on deflecting. A damn quote is all I ask.
So you have no problem with major public figures advocating for foreign countries to steal the personal information of US citizens.
As others have said please provide quotes. With all of Trump's statements direct quotes have been provided. You might disagree but I don't think that is compares to implying assasinating a political opponent or asking for foreign hackers to invade a US Citizens personal data. Which Trump wasn't in position to vote for and his comments show didn't actually oppose the invasion of Iraq until well after it happened. I agree HIllary Clinton's not perfect. She has a checkered history at best. I don't think that excuses Trump. Anyway you never answered the exact question regarding if Clinton or some other Democrat had asked for foriegn hackers to steal and release information from a US Citizen.
Those are not sayings. They are not cliches. Hence, not platitudes. I don't disagree with your point, they just aren't platitudes. I think Hitler was an awful, awful person, but if I called him a Communist over and over again I would be wrong. He wasn't a Communist. The underlying point that he believed in a terrible ideology that led to him doing terrible things would be sound, but he still wasn't a Communist. I would be misusing the word Communist. I don't make the assertions you are accusing me of making. Even so, you saying I do without evidence is not a vague platitude. You should continue asking for quotes, just quit saying platitude. You can even keep using the word vague where it applies (more in the Obama is divisive topic, less in the Hillary blamed the Benghazi attack on a youtube video - that is a pretty specific accusation). Just trying to help, if you want to keep misusing the word platitude, more power to you. I have no problem with a presidential candidate, in the wake of a hack that revealed corruption in the camp of their opponent, making an off the cuff remark that it would be nice if the same hackers could publicize data that the American people nearly universally believe should be made public, but which that political opponent has hidden. Should President Obama hold a press conference and say hackers should really probe into StupidMoniker and publicize his bank account information? Of course not. That is not what is at issue.
Isn't it the job of Manafort to 1) make sure other people in the campaign don't say **** that requires the campaign to explain on TV, and 2) to know what people in the campaign said publicly so that the campaign can respond and explain as needed? <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This exchange between <a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper">@jaketapper</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/PaulManafort">@PaulManafort</a> is tremendous. You can feel the ice from Tapper. <a href="https://t.co/CciReB4LLT">pic.twitter.com/CciReB4LLT</a></p>— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) <a href="https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/764864130557804544">August 14, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Can you find me a definition where it mentions it has to be a 'saying'? "a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful." 'Obama is divisive' is a remark or statement and it's a statement that is overplayed and overstated and it's vague because it has no spine of explicit evidence just random people stating it from their gut hence 'vague platitude'.
In other words, "there are no such quotes, I made it up (as does Trump), and don't ask me to substantiate the BS I post."
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump disagrees with Trump on nearly everything. <a href="https://t.co/dqq7NYJW5g">https://t.co/dqq7NYJW5g</a></p>— Anthony De Rosa (@Anthony) <a href="https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/763040813450465280">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Or in other words "I didn't reply to you, so why are you getting involved?" Ask fchowd for a link - he has them.
