Hillary For President

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

But that's not how I perceive your behavior here. You are a one man marching band for Hillary instead of being quietly thankful that she only has Trump to beat. And putting Trump down only goes to show that she is not that much better either since both have near equal negatives, and that's never going to reduce.

In the end, the less people know about Hillary, the better off she will be.

Your concern is duly noted. Request denied.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Not where I was going, and please don't assume my logic is as bad as that.

Here's what I meant: you questioned 'irrational hatred.' You might deny both words, or only one of them. My point kind of is that people who hate just about always think their particular ill feeling is highly rational. I say disapproval can be rational, but hate? Never.

I'd say what's irrational is assigning a person or group of people as haters. You have, in the past, stated that conservatives see anyone who does not agree with their views as hated enemies. You have defended lefty hate, saying that "it's not real hate the way right-wingers do it. Right-wing hate gets people burned, or shot, or dragged to their death."

You don't know what's in the hearts of others, yet you are very quick to decide who's a hater, and of course it's not you, it's everyone you disapprove of.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by barbara

I don't see their negatives as being equal. Not even close to equal.....

Of course you wouldn't, your political religion probably prohibits any criticism of Hillary.

I was generally referring to where both presumptive nominees have a high but near equal unfavorability rating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b45_story.html

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Not where I was going, and please don't assume my logic is as bad as that.

Here's what I meant: you questioned 'irrational hatred.' You might deny both words, or only one of them. My point kind of is that people who hate just about always think their particular ill feeling is highly rational. I say disapproval can be rational, but hate? Never.

Not assuming, challenging your logic.

I have already claimed that human are irrational and we rationalize after the fact. Case in point, Hillary rotten candidate (a majority believes this) and now Democrats want to rationalize her selection as being better than Trump!

Then there is the word hate. How can you ever prove that if I do not like something or somebody, I hate that item or person?

Now who is being irrational?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Your concern is duly noted. Request denied.

Wallow in you misery then, topic of Hillary is open season here and elsewhere.

[bobabode]

Clinton proposes reforms to school debt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...student-loans/

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Of course you wouldn't, your political religion probably prohibits any criticism of Hillary.



I was generally referring to where both presumptive nominees have a high but near equal unfavorability rating.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b45_story.html

I guess it doesn't matter how many times I explain my position regarding the candidates to you. You made up your mind about me and nothing will change that. Too bad you have such a closed mind.

Don't have a "political religion" and I do understand Hilary's flaws. I just think Trump's flaws are far worse and more dangerous for our country.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Wallow in you misery then, topic of Hillary is open season here and elsewhere.

Misery? Those voices in your head are getting a little loud aren't they?

As a wise Democrat once said, "I welcome their hatred".

Wait, I thought you were on vacation. How does the family in India feel about the election?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I'd say what's irrational is assigning a person or group of people as haters. You have, in the past, stated that conservatives see anyone who does not agree with their views as hated enemies. You have defended lefty hate, saying that "it's not real hate the way right-wingers do it. Right-wing hate gets people burned, or shot, or dragged to their death."

You don't know what's in the hearts of others, yet you are very quick to decide who's a hater, and of course it's not you, it's everyone you disapprove of.

I wish you had a link to the message you quote above, but i found it, so anyone who whats to look at the complete message, and the context, can do so here: http://www.politicalchat.org/showthr...030#post253030

I stand by my complete comments in context.

Of course I decide if I think someone is being hateful, and may comment. Unless you don't think there's any hate around, i don't see what's wrong with this in principle. I'm always willing to discuss my judgements in any particular case. Is there something you want to dig into further?

I deny your general judgement that I'm 'quick to decide.' You imply my decisions lack basis. Again, cite cases, and we can discuss. Otherwise, thank-you for your opinion.

As for it being 'never me,' if you have an instance where you think I am expressing hate myself, let's hear about it. Otherwise, might never be me because, well, it's never me.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Not assuming, challenging your logic.

I have already claimed that human are irrational and we rationalize after the fact. Case in point, Hillary rotten candidate (a majority believes this) and now Democrats want to rationalize her selection as being better than Trump!

Then there is the word hate. How can you ever prove that if I do not like something or somebody, I hate that item or person?

Now who is being irrational?

Except it's not my logic. I never said anything as illogical as '...anyone who is not voting for Hillary is doing so because they hate her.'

I'm not out to prove you hate. I just say that if you do, you are irrational. Based on what you just said, I think we agree on that much .