Show me where someone said you did.
Done with you.
I once read about a poll - I’m not telling what European country it was as I’m at all sure if it was a real poll, but I can actually believe it was…
People were asked would they rather:
A) have € 100 and their neighbour have € 100
B) have € 200 and their neighbour have € 500
and
C) have a punch in the face and their neighbour have no punches
D) have two punches in the face and their neighbour have one punch
Majority voted:
A and D 
Police called. Your Freshman Comp 101 teacher is standing out on a ledge, threatening to jump.
How about you ask people to defend things they actually said, instead of things they didn’t?
But I’m a co-operative kind of guy. So, no, I don’t think half of Trump supporters are Nazis. And I’ll re-affirm that I never said that half of Trump’s supporters are Nazis.
Let’s be real. She was running for office. She wanted to get elected. I doubt she would have turned away anyone’s vote (assuming she had the power to do so).
The question is what she was willing to do to get people to vote for her. And she was not willing to speak well of Nazism in order to court the Nazi vote. But that’s a really low bar. Most candidates, Democrats and Republicans, wouldn’t be willing to speak well of Nazism to court the Nazi vote.
Communism and Naziism (Nazism?) in America are not comparable beasts. American Communists want economic equality for everyone. American Nazis want persecution, deportation and/or death for Jews, blacks, gays and millions of assorted others. Both are deeply delusional, but only one group is actively dangerous. The worst we have to fear from American Communists is that they might stage a sit-in if their local Trader Joes runs out of quinoa chips.
Stalinism would be a somewhat more appropriate comparison, and if there were groups marching through the streets waving the hammer-and-sickle flag and demanding pogroms, you betcha we’d be against that. But that’s not happening, is it?
But notice how you reframe the debate to draw focus away from the worst cases? These weren’t an irrelevant fringe; Trump retweeted messages from white supremacist sources on multiple occasions and continued to do so long after it was pointed out that maybe this was sending the wrong message.
And the sad truth is that most of the people who use the phrase “I just want a stricter immigration policy” *are *in fact xenophobic once you start digging into their beliefs. They’re the same people defending Sheriff Joe Arpaio. And the majority of people “who think there’s a concern in forcing bakers to design custom cakes for same-sex marriages” *are *actually bigots, hiding behind the thin veneer of “religious freedom” claims in the same way segregationists hid (and still hide) behind “states’ rights”.
Yes, there are non-bigots in both groups but let’s not pretend they’re a majority or even a significant minority. Is it “wise” to call out the bigots? Perhaps not. But it’s true nonetheless that they are bigots. I mean, Trump gave out a steady stream of “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” messages throughout the campaign. If his followers weren’t people those messages appealed to, who was he talking to and why were those messages so successful?
Am I allowed to ask people to clarify their thoughts based on their apparent implications?
Because we started with my critique of Clinton’s line and your defense of that line on the general grounds that politicians should speak out against Nazis and Klansmen. Then I pointed out that while I agree with you there, Clinton’s line covered much more than just Nazis and Knlansmen: it appeared to cover people for whom the areas of disagreement are much closer to reasonable ones. We know this, I said, because half of Trump’s supporters are not Nazis or Klansmen.
At which point you demanded to know when you claimed such a thing.
So if you’re caught up, then here’s the question again. Clinton said that roughly half of Trump’s voters are “deplorable.” I say that was unwise. She herself now concedes it was unwise. You appeared to disagree, citing a moral imperative to stand up to Nazis. I pointed out that her comments reached beyond the Trump-supporting Nazis.
Go.
Clinton insulted about half of Trump’s supporters, as a group. Trump insulted 100% of Trump’s supporters, as a group. As well as insulting 100% of women, 100% of immigrants, 100% of Muslims, and a wide variety of other groups.
No, they are not.
You insist on playing Atticus Finch for Team Trump, counselor. Why?
It is not a distraction, it’s a practical question. If half of Trump’s supporters are not in fact bigots but made common cause with those who are, how are we to distinguish between them?
You don’t have to be a Nazi or a Klansmen to be a bigot, a homophobe, and islamophobe, or any of the other class of deplorables she was talking about.
Are you saying that as long as someone is not a Nazi or Klansmen, then their bigotry becomes much closer to reasonable positions?
She did not call out people who are concerned about our border, she called out bigots, she did not call out people who were concerned about cake makers, she called out homophobes, she did not call out people who are concerned about terrorism, she called out islamophobes.
Anyone who was offended was either ignorant of what she said, or considers themselves to be one of those groups.
Odd that this question doesn’t arise when I play Atticus Finch for certain other people.
Why?
OK. I’m done here.
Clinton herself acknowledged the line was a misstep politically, but you don’t agree with her, or me, on the point.
We’ll agree to disagree.
Our peers would be intelligent people. There are damn few of us left on this board.
Which of the points in play would that be? Because “Clinton now thinks she was unwise to make the remark” isn’t the same point as “Clinton falsely accused some Trump supporters of being bigots” or “It’s better to lie and win than to be honest and lose”. Being correct on the first one doesn’t make you correct on the second, and the third remains debatable.
I agree with #2.
That is, I agree some Trump supporters are bigots and that as to them, Clinton’s accusation was accurate.
As to the third, it ties in nicely to the first: it’s possible to avoid lying, avoid most insulting, and win. See, e.g., Obama, B.
I know you say that you are done here, but you have entirely misattributed what I said.
It was a misstep politically, sure, because people are stupid, and took it in the most stupid fashion possible. But that does not make it any less true.
Pretty much any time she said anything true, that was a misstep politically, compared to ever time trump lied, he got more support.
If you were insulted by her statement, then you consider yourself one of those groups. I do not see how anyone who does not consider themself to be a racist to be offended when racists are called out.
I get that telling the truth can cost you politically, and I get that lying to the voters is a good way to get support, I just don’t think that these are a good way to continue things. It should not have been a political misstep to call out bigots and racists. It should have been a political misstep for trump of not calling out bigots and racists.
The fact that calling out racists and bigots has become a political misstep is definitely a problem in our politics, and one we should be looking to solve, not one we should be gloating about and looking to capitalize on further.
That…isn’t what #2 said.
It is also possible to lie your ass off and win. See, e.g., Trump, D.
It’s a bit difficult to extrapolate from one data point each, but I seem to recall you quoting Henry Clay to imply that “being right” and “being President” are often mutually exclusive, which suggests this is a view you support (although your views do seem to evolve rapidly over the course of a thread sometimes).
I don’t think the hypothesis “you can win the US presidency without lying” has actually been tested yet by anyone.
Trump took things to the extreme, but that doesn’t expunge everyone else.
How close would you say Jimmy Carter came?