I have read many comments sections for many news articles and I’ll tell you, part of me thinks that the use of the term “deplorables” was charitable.
See, I thought this thread was about campaign tactics.
Like, if we’re asking if she should’ve said that quote about just how deplorable the irredeemable are, I figured the question wasn’t whether her remark was accurate, or whether it would’ve been more accurate to use even harsher language; the question is, what should she have said with an eye toward winning the election?
In the context of the campaign, was that a smart thing to say, or a dumb thing to say? In the context of getting elected, was there something that would’ve been better for her to say, then and there? Whoever runs to win in 2020 should say – what?
Didn’t add anything for me, I was already scared about the people I saw adoring Il Douche. Zombie movies are less scary. But I was a given, and doesn’t remotely affect the question of bringing on the undecided. But then I would have to understand why they are undecided, given the horrendous possible consequences of electing an ignorant lout to be the single most powerful man on the planet.
I confess I do not. But it certainly seems that many of those so described…“deplorable”…were quite pleased to bandy it about and flute it. (The soundtrack going through my head when I watched them was Randy Newman’s scathing “Rednecks”.)
But it was unlikely that they could be any more alienated from HRC anyway. So, then, the undecided and non-deplorable…they will compare HRC’s vicious slur with the decorous and civil Mr. Trump, and she suffers by comparison? Really?
Again, to the extent that Trump said indecorous and uncivil stuff about people who haven’t legally immigrated here, and that Clinton said indecorous and uncivil things about millions of our citizens – well, then, given that there really were undecided voters, which one of those slurs would come out ahead, in that comparison?
Picture an undecided voter who (a) doesn’t actually know any of the people Trump is insulting, and who (b) does know the folks Clinton is insulting: they’re friends, they’re family, they’re co-workers, they’re drinking buddies, et cetera. Does he sympathize with the people Trump is insulting? Does he sympathize with the people Clinton is insulting? If ‘yes’ to both, who does he sympathize with more?
(Also, why even make it a question? Like, since she said it, we can ask whether her remark suffers by comparison with his – and you can ask that with derision, but you can ask it, is the thing. If she hadn’t said that millions of Americans are deplorable and irredeemable, then – well, we wouldn’t ask; we couldn’t, really. So, was it a smart move for her to make that comparison possible, making it possible for her to suffer by comparison? Did she gain anything by introducing that risk?)
Well, you are phrasing the question askew, as though there were only one incident for each. Like comparing a fart to Vesuvius. Also elides the person who is not deplorable and doesn’t want to be associated with such as these.
Might be best for all those on the Hillary side of this to simply throw up our hands and confess that, yes, yes, its all our fault that Trump currently infects the Oval Orifice, and beseech forgiveness from…who?
But still, one could hardly do better for civility and decorum than Barrack, and it sure didn’t seem to help him all that much.
I don’t much care about who should beseech forgiveness from whom. What interests me, and the only reason I can see for asking whether her remark was a smart move, is that I’d sure like the word to go out not to do that the next time around, if the answer is “oh, man, that was a dumb move and it shouldn’t be repeated.”
If you disagree – if you think it’s a smart move that should be repeated, and one that should maybe get a double dose of vitriol next time – then I genuinely want to hear that argument. But if you figure it was a dumb move, such that the next candidate should be ready with a different answer when inevitably asked about “deplorables” come 2020, then I guess I kind of want to hear that instead.
Well, OK, where are we gonna get the candidate that makes no mistakes at all, ever? Perhaps we look for people who stroll across the lake?
And what if she’s right? Some of the groups that supported Trump are just downright deplorable, no two ways about it. We are bound by law and the Constitution to respect their right to their opinions and their vote, but does that mean we are bound to approve? Or that we are bound to silence our disapproval? Chickenshit way to stand for something, don’t you think?
If some specific individual or some identifiable group (like the KKK) comes out in support of Trump, there should be no problem identifying them as “deplorable”. Characterizing some ill-defined, very large group of Americans (e.g., “half” of Trump supporters) as deplorable is a bad tactic. This is not brain surgery (if we can still say that these days).
Well, look, while I’d still mention it if she made some unforced error during a debate or whatever, I’d presumably throw in a “nobody’s perfect” when shruggingly figuring that it’s the sort of mistake that people make under pressure and off-the-cuff.
But this seems to have been done with intent; seems it was planned and scripted, as part of a scripted plan the next candidate (a) might try next time, and (b) can devise a stance on now, knowing that the question will presumably come up in 2020 when someone asks “we heard what she said about deplorables; what do you say?”
Uh, yeah, I guess. But she walked it back the next day, right? And then she lost.
If I cared about the ‘chickenshit’ label, I’d stress the “walked it back the next day” bit; but I care more about the second part, is all. Like, what if she could’ve won without saying that then – and without walking it back the next day – and then (a) would’ve had the power to do stuff during the ensuing presidency, and (b) could’ve railed against those ‘deplorables’ during every day of said presidency?
Well, we can say It’s Not Rocket Surgery! 