Why do you think she walked that remark back the next day, expressing regret, before replying to a debate question about the basket-of-deplorables line by (a) emphasizing that she’d said she was sorry within hours, and (b) explaining, right there on live television, that her problem wasn’t with his supporters, but with him?
(I’m entirely serious; this isn’t some quip, it’s not an attempt at a ‘gotcha’: why do you think she said all of that after she’d made that remark?)
Because she knew it cost her votes, and she was trying to make up some of the damage.
If It had not been picked up by the news and repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over, do you think that anyone would have really cared?
She said something that, when taken out of context, could be spun to be insulting towards people she no desire to insult, and would rather reach out to.
We don’t need or want the support of the deplorables. Unfortunately, right wing news sources made is seem as though she was talking about a much larger segment than she was.
When she realized how her offhand statement was being spun, the lies that were told about it, it was easier to try to walk it back than to explain it to people who have already made up their minds as to what it means.
That she was right has nothing to do with how her remark was spun by those who want to paint her in as negative a light as possible. These are not contradictory.
Well, see, that’s sort of where I was going with this: do you think that Trump’s line, the one that sparked this “Deplorables vs. Crazy” thread, will likewise cost him votes when he’s up for re-election — such that he should’ve promptly tried to walk it back if he wanted to make up some of that damage?
Because, if so, then I figure the discussion goes one way; but if not, then I figure there’s a significant difference and the discussion should maybe zero in on that.
Probably not. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support. He can call his political opponents crazy or evil. He can call on his mobs to chant “Lock him/her up.” and it doesn’t cost him any votes.
Democrats on the other hand, are a bit more sensitive. Hillary lost votes every time she said anything that anyone disagreed with. She then lost more when what she said was repeated and amplified, until people thought that that was actually her message, that that was a slogan or a talking point, rather than just an offhand remark.
Trump has no shame, and his voters don’t either. The rules are different for the people who want to improve this country, and the ones who want to burn it down.
Do you also imply some sort of hypocrisy because the fire chief of a town feels differently about fire than the arsonist?
…I’m not “also” implying hypocrisy. I’m merely noting that, as per the title of this thread and a healthy amount of the discussion therein, comparing the two remarks leads me to the same conclusion that you’ve stated: one, as you say, cost her votes, such that attempts were then made to walk it back in hopes of making up some of the damage; and the other, as you said, probably won’t cost him votes.
I don’t see why you’d think that’s me implying some sort of hypocrisy; near as I can tell, those are just points that you and I happen to agree on.
He’s an idiot, BYKTA.
I don’t recall it even being reported over here. But let’s remember that the originator - or at least recent resurrector - of the meme was not Clinton but another Republican, Mitt Romney. Do you remember his “47 per cent” gaffe?
Sorry, royal “you”.
Really, who could forget the violent and hate-filled speeches of Obama? Well, me, I guess, can’t seem to remember any.
I feel compelled to say that it’s unfair to quote just the middle of what Hillary said that day, leaving out the context, and twisting her words to say the opposite of what she meant.
I would paraphrase her comments like this:
Hey Democrats. I know it’s tempting to dismiss Trump supporters because you think they are racist homophobes who are beyond reach, but that’s not helpful really. You should engage Trump supporter with sympathy and try to change their minds. Don’t assume they are racist homophobes. Remember that lots of them are just worried about their jobs and maybe you actually can reach them if you treat them like human beings instead of monsters.
And then the Republicans spun that as Hillary saying Trump supporters are monsters.
Even here in this thread people are doing it. K9bfriender said “Here’s the quote” and then started quoted Hillary mid-sentence “half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.” It would be more honest (but still leaving out the context) to include the first half of that sentence, which is “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
There’s a huge difference between “Half the apples are rotten” and “If you’re being grossly generalistic, you could put half the apples into a barrel labelled ROTTEN.” The first is making a claim about the apples. The second is making a comment about the person who is doing the sorting and implying that they are doing it wrong.
Here’s the full quote of what she actually said (emphasis mine):
Her only gaff, really, was using the word “half”. She should have said “a few” or “some”.
I was intending to give it fuller context, as the context that was being given was essentially 0. You are correct that the even fuller context explains it even better, and that looking at it in that light, it would take someone with motivated reasoning, or someone fooled by someone else’s motivated reasoning, to think otherwise. I feel the same about the part that I quoted, that it would take motivated reasoning to take exception to it, unless you are a bigot and are uncomfortable being called out on that.
But, baby steps, I see it. First, you need to get them to even look at the original source material, rather than just listen to the fox news slant. Then you have to show them that the 3 words that they object to are in a larger context of a phrase, then you show that that is in a larger context of a sentence, then you spring the whole paragraph on them, showing that their interpretation is utterly incorrect. Eventually, their attention span may be capable of handling that entire excerpt that you posted.