Hillary and the Trump-voter “basket of deplorables”
Seems the big news today is Hillary’s comment about the “ists” and “ics” of Trump’s supporters:
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
She added, “And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”
Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”
She described the rest of his supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.
The Democratic nominee made similar comments in an interview Thursday with an Israeli television station. But when they were widely reported Friday night, Trump and Republicans quickly pounced on the remarks, which drew comparisons to President Barack Obama’s comments about clinging to “guns and religion” at a 2008 campaign fundraiser and Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remark in 2012.
And then there was today’s partial walkback:
“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” Clinton said in a statement in which she also vowed to call out “bigotry” in Trump’s campaign.
It’s worth reading the entire CNN article for the reactions of various people to the remarks. Trump showed his political savvy by pouncing on them; we already know he’s good at political combat. Hillary has an interesting dilemma here: how to capitalize on the white supremacist element supporting Trump without insulting the Trump voters as a whole, those she wants to win over. That’s why the “half” part of her accusation matters, and it’s why she explicitly tried to undo that part without withdrawing the charge as a whole.
There is truth in the assertion that some of Trump’s supporters are bigots. Even the right (and that includes me) has written about the phenomenon. And there is much consternation about the possibility of feeding and empowering that segment, a consternation that I share. But no one has any idea what the numbers are, and it is virtually certain it doesn’t begin to amount to half of his supporters (not that it would need to amount to half to be a dangerous element to encourage).
Saying “half” was a faux pas, and Clinton must have gotten feedback that it was or she wouldn’t have tried to take it back. Saying “half” does indeed have a similar effect that Romney’s “47%” did, and that’s not a good effect on a campaign. It is also interesting that both statements were made at fundraisers (Romney’s, however, was supposedly private). In both cases the candidates were arguing that that percentage (over 50% of Trump voters in Hillary’s case, and 47% of all voters in Romney’s) were votes that were lost to the speaker’s party. Hillary, however, went even further and said that some were “irredeemable,” and her referring to a “basket” of them has the not-altogether-subtle connotation of something to throw away.
Clinton also listed a string of types of bigotry she alleges that these Trump supporters exhibit, not just the white supremacy aspect: “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.” Let’s take them in order:
(1) racist—An obvious reference to the white supremacists. But instead of saying “white supremacists,” she says “racists” in general, which is more global and could be considered to refer to all people who voted against Obama. That was an argument that’s been used since the 2008 campaign—that any objection to Obama or his policies is by definition racist.
(2) sexist—This seems a reference to the idea (about which I wrote an entire post yesterday) that a vote against Hillary is the vote of a sexist.
(3) homophobic—I care almost nothing about Hillary’s sexuality and ordinarily don’t post speculation about it, but I’m certainly aware of the rumors, and I wonder if this remark feeds into it if some people thing she’s saying that being against her is being against gay people. Maybe yes, maybe no. But she certainly seems to be saying that being against the principles she’s now for such as gay marriage (although just a few short years ago she too said she was against it) is by definition homophobic.
(4) xenophobic and Islamophobic—Both of these charges would be an insinuation that to be against illegal immigration and amnesty or against taking in Syrian refugees is to be xenophobic. I wrote an entire post on why that is a mistaken assertion. A hardline on terrorism is also often taken to be a symptom of “Islamophobia.”
If Hillary wants to woo people over to being Hillary voters, these generalized accusations are not a good idea. Whether or not Hillary explicitly says that half of Trump’s supporters fall into these categories and are “irredeemable,” she is implying that these are common motivations for the people who may not vote for her, and that anyone who doesn’t vote for her runs the danger of falling into one of these classifications.
This works (as I wrote yesterday) when preaching to the liberal choir, which she was doing when she made the remarks at the fundraiser. But it runs the risk of alienating a lot of voters she needs to come over to her side, Independents and moderate Democrats who have been considering voting for Trump. They might resent being called “irredeemable” racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and the catchall “you name it.”
No one wants to be called names. No one (or very few) wants especially to be called these names, and especially if in that person’s heart he/she knows that’s not at all the reason he/she is supporting or considering supporting Trump. Clinton tried to finesse that problem by also referring to people supporting Trump because of economic anxiety, and saying they are the ones with whom her supporters should empathize. But I don’t think that dividing Trump’s supporters neatly in half on the basis of “good guys = the economically insecure; bad guys = everyone else” does the trick, because she’s already given us that string of adjectives that could be interpreted as implicating anyone who’s against gay marriage or unrestrained immigration as a person with an evil and perhaps deplorable heart.
Clinton would do well to avoid demonizing Trump supporters (or those even considering supporting him) at all if she wants to win some of them over. If she wants to talk about this issue, she could refer only to the small but rabid group of white supremacists who also support him, emphasize their dangerousness, and leave all the rest of it out. But she can’t resist generalizing, because these accusations are memes the Democratic Party has been riding on successfully for a long time.
Trump tweeted in response:
Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!
And this tweet of Trump’s was (in my opinion) the especially smart one in the tactical sense:
While Hillary said horrible things about my supporters, and while many of her supporters will never vote for me, I still respect them all!
Whether it will end up mattering I do not know. But this exchange shows how things could start swinging in Trump’s favor.
Pretty amazing that she said it, really, considering the damage that 47% comment did to Romney’s campaign in 2012. You’d think all politicians would have that lesson seared into their brains.
“Now, see, it’s a simple mischaraterizaion of a misunderstanding of my misstatement, and that is all.”
(Yeah, that’s my best attempt at Clinton-speak…)
They’re so used to pep-talking their tribe, and never being held to account otherwise, that they just can’t help themselves. It was exactly what this particular audience expects to hear. Problem is, it didn’t just stay there.
There are bigots in both parties, and their bigotry overlaps a great deal. Seriously, am I to believe a majority of anti-Semites are voting Republican this or any year? What does one figure the breakdown of misogynists is- I would guess it mirrors the party support breakdown of men overall. As for the rest of it, I doubt more than 70% the bigots that are anti-Black vote Republican in a given year.
Yes, her statement was a very bad blunder because it broke a very important social and political convention- those that want to lead cannot bad-mouth those one is looking to lead, even if they are in the other political camp. I noted on some sites that a lot of Hillary!’s trolls were out pointing to other commentators who say equally nasty things about Democrats and Progressives, and that this justified Hillary!’s comment. This goes right to the heart of the meaning of the phrase “preaching to the choir”- that they cannot see why Clinton must adhere to a much higher standard of decorum with regards to her ordinary Joe critics isn’t surprising. That Clinton felt she had to try to walk it back was telling, but the way she did it, I think, compounds the damage. If I were Trump, I would use “The Deplorables” as a badge of honor.
If this does not damage her badly, then I lose all hope for this society. It would obviously mean that there are too many who haven’t enough class to function in polite society.
Class diversitists (i.e. racists, sexists). Female chauvinists. Anti-native factions (e.g. refugee crises, mass exodus — illegal immigration). Selective exclusion (“=”). Trickle-up poverty (e.g. redistributive change without a robust abortion protocol). Progressive wars. Opportunistic regimes changes. Selective-child policy. The bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy) runs deep.
And I will make one other point before letting it go- this mistake by Hillary! is somewhat related to the mistake Trump made with regards to the Khan speech.
As a candidate, there are unwritten social rules for going after critics and opponents. If you are going to go after a critic, make damned sure it doesn’t look like a big bully beating up on a smaller opponent. Clinton would probably been ok if she hadn’t made the statement so damned general, but even then you have to take care about singling out individual critics and opponents- something Trump didn’t do well.
the way this is applied is not complicated:
While there certainly may be people upset about economic issues, you, personally, are not one of them. You’re bigot.
The point is to put the opponent on the defensive and to shut him up, and to change the subject.
Im voting for Trump, but only with great reluctance. Having said that, I cant think of a single thing that would make me vote for Hillary.
Nothing.
And her bringing in Ronald Reagan as to what he would say about Trump supposedly attacking Generals, as if thats some how a plus for her to mention him. As if Reagan would be stumping for Hillary.
Oh, and for that basket of deplorables, she can find one in any mirror she looks into.
Neo recommends that if Hillary wants to talk about “this issue”, that Hillary should refer only to “the small but rabid group of white supremacists who also support him [Trump], emphasize their dangerousness…” Why would Hillary bring up “small but rabid”? That would be a waste of her time.
How about “tiny and of trivial danger”, instead, Neo? Not a good campaign meme either.
So of course Hillary will demonize whites as if she were not one; since Bill was the First Black President.
The fact is that white supremacy is NOT an issue.
I haven’t seen any white supremacist flash mobs anywhere. I haven’t seen college libraries invaded by a mob of whites yelling, “White lives matter.” I haven’t seen any New White Panthers intimidating at voting places.
I haven’t seen white supremacists being physically dangerous anywhere. Black supremacists, yes.
When former American Nazi David Duke(R) ran against Edwin Edwards(D) for governor of Louisiana, having won the GOP primary, the Democratic bumper stickers read “Vote for the crook! It’s important!”
Kinda like today: one candidate is frank if unbuffed, and the other one is a crook and a liar.
I have seen a lot of “white supremacist” hysteria on the Left, similar in tone to the disgusting remarks by Hillary yesterday, and I am sorry to see that same false issue emerge here by our esteemed hostess. What is the “dangerousness” of today’s white supremacists compared to all the other real and major dangers we face at the neglectful hands of Hillary and the Democrats? It’s chicken feed, rubbish, a distraction.
I expect Neo will dismiss me again as a curmudgeon.
“Clinton would do well to avoid demonizing Trump supporters (or those even considering supporting him) at all if she wants to win some of them over.” neo
Obviously Hillary would love to win over some of those, however reluctantly, inclined to vote for Trump. But I suspect this is more about dissuading the undecideds from voting for Trump. As what independent or undecided would want to be associated with people who are “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”?
Frog:
Well, you ARE a curmudgeon 🙂 . But not because of this.
I brought it up mainly because I think it would have been a smart tactical move for Clinton to have linked Trump to his white supremacist supporters, who most definitely exist. But she should have kept it at that.
I am disappointed that you seemed to miss a salient point that is cuts to the heart of an unwarranted self righteousness on the left, that they are overflowing with a bigotry. They have their pet groups no doubt, African American, Hispanic illegals, Muslims, gays, all of whom they exploit as brands in their grab for money and power, but what about the Walmart crowd, what about fundamental Christians, or a wide swath of white middle class America, or simply Republicans? If you are black, Indian etc. and republican, your views are not valid. Carolyn Swain? Thomas Sewell? The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as “an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view.” That covers the progressive as easily as anyone else. It is high time that the bigotry of the Democratic party was exposed. They are the party of racism. It’s a historical fact, no matter how you paint it up. The urban plantation is engineered by their philosophy. They know better than anyone the crippling effect of entitlements. They give out just enough to keep folks right where they are. It’s the same thing philosophy of pharmaceuticals and medicine. You don’t cure the ill that feeds an industry. And in the industry of politics, you foment, you don’t fix.
“Saying “half” does indeed have a similar effect that Romney’s “47%” did,”
What I thought of immediately as well — which is why she is walking it back, as you say.
Yancey “If I were Trump, I would use “The Deplorables” as a badge of honor.”
Some people already are. Twittering, of course.
Saw it earlier today, but don’t remember where.
Trump will beat her bloody with her “deplorables” comment. She’s putting 32 million into that category. Stronger together? Yeah, right.
This is what Hillary really thinks of anyone who opposes her. And, if elected, she will use all of her powers to destroy her opponents.
This could be a turning point.
I am a Deplorable.
“If I were Trump, I would use “The Deplorables” as a badge of honor.”
Yeah, my immediate thought on reading her remark was that Trump supporters would start proudly referring to themselves that way. I certainly would jump on that if I were one of them.
What’s funny is that the part I was most insulted by was “economic anxiety.”
An anodyne term for the deplorable state of employment in America today, and one which has the implication that complainers are hysterical.
As if this were all just in their imaginations.
But then, I don’t imagine Hillary spends much time wondering how to make ends meet.
I wonder, Neo what is so tactically smart (your words) about Hillary creating a phony link of Trump to white supremacists, who may number about 30,000 in toto. That is 0.01% of the population, one in ten thousand. Do I know 10,000 people? Do you? Does anyone?
Most members of the Aryan Nation, a white supremacist group, signed up in prison. Most are therefore felons. Are they more dangerous than non-whites convicted of violent felonies? I submit they are not.
There are surely more pedophiles than white supremacists. Should Hillary link Trump to them too?
It maybe a smart tactical move to create a straw man who is allegedly dangerous to boot, but if that is the path to victory we will get much more of the same. Orwellian.
Vote for Hillary because she is a woman and supposedly not a racist. That’s all she’s got.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
I think the number of white supremacist Trump supporters is 30 million. I got that from the same source as Frog.
Hillary calls Trump supporters bigots?
So, the kettle calls the pot black!
Is Hillary Clinton a lesbian? After a lifetime of marriage to Bill it’s certainly possible she would turn anywhere she could to find love.
Edith Efron described Hillary in a 1994 article:
Hillary Clinton provides Clinton with certain narrow logical skills of which he is singularly bereft. This does not imply that she is Aristotle, any more than a seeing-eye dog is a cartographer. It implies only that as compared to Clinton, the blazing Bubba, Mrs. Clinton is on speaking terms with logic, and he cannot function without her.
The symbiotic relationship they had is no more and it shows. Without Bill’s charm you are left with nothing but the dry cackle and bitterness of old age.
Efron’s article offers lots of insight that is very timely, should the bitch get elected.
http://reason.com/archives/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think
What I found to be Deplorable was the fact she was applauded by her audience when she said it.
I told my wife I might have to get a new T Shirt –
I AM a Deplorable
and proud of it
Frog, I consider myself a Crumudgeon too.
Frog:
What’s so smart about it is that it is true that there are such people and that they are linked to Trump, although neither you nor I nor anyone else really has a clue how many there are (but I have certainly encountered them online, and quite a few)—but mostly because it is believable and taints Trump in the eyes of more moderate voters (who are indeed numerous), and because it will not offend any Democrats or Independents who are undecided between Hillary and Trump and whom she is trying to woo.
Not that it’s some sort of amazing, brilliant, win-win tactic. It’s just something she could have said instead, and which would have helped her rather than hurt her.
I can think of no “modern day” organization that is more supremacist than Black Lives Matter. And we certainly know who’s been courting them.
To listen to Leftist and Hillary, one would think that the Klan is still active, rampagin around in hooded robes. According to the Anti-Defamation League, there are only 3,000 active members, in little groups in the backwoods. I’d wager that there are many times more people who are active in, or who support, BLM. Especially if you count the college campuses.
I’m always confused by the Islamophobe accusation. It would seem to me that every woman who values her freedom would be and virulently so. After all, are you willing to be one of four wives? Is it acceptable that your husband can beat you, though to be generous the stick can’t be thicker than his thumb? Would you strangle your daughter because she dishonored the family when an uncle raped her? Are you fine with a cliterectomy, aka, female genital mutilation? How about the female slave trade and nine year old wives? Beheading for adultery, though it’s perfectly acceptable for men.
This all goes on in the Muslim world. Even worse, many places that had accepted Western values for the treatment of women are slipping back into strict Sharia law.
Allahpundit over at Hot Air wonders if maybe this wasn’t a gaffe, but a strategic play, since she used the “deplorables” line on Israeli TV a few days ago and “if that was an off-the-cuff gaffe, Team Clinton would have huddled afterward and resolved to never repeat it”. He also notes a former GOP staffer who tweeted “HRC would rather talk about anything than emails–if she can goad media into debating the proportion of racists among Trump’s base, why not?”.
The whole piece is interesting, especially the part discussing why Romney’s “47 percent” actually wasn’t a definitive game-changer in 2012.
I can’t wait to see the polls after this. We’re gonna need a bigger basket!
“Republicans quickly pounced[…]”
Drink!
Since Hillary does not make comments like this “off the top of her head” we know that her advisors counseled her to make the remark. I have been trying to figure out what they had in mind, given how it has turned out. I think that I have it.
I remember an election in which I did not want Bill Clinton to be President. Nor did I really want Ross Perot. However, I have a rule that I have never broken: If a politician (figuratively) looks me in the eye and says he or she will never do or not do something (“Read my lips…no new taxes.”) then he damned well better do or not do it. So I did not vote for Bush for that reason alone. I will forever carry the guilt for contributing to the election of Bill Clinton. For any millennials (hah!) reading this, Bush enacted new taxes of the very type he swore he would never enact. I would vote the same again. So.
Hillary’s supporters know that many people who always vote, no matter what, have similar rules. Some of them are Democrats. It appears that circumstances are very possibly going to occur that will have people believing that Hillary has committed – whatever, but something that clearly crosses a line that would cause voters now for her to vote for Trump.
The Democrats may desperately need a reason for her supporters to hold their noses and still vote for her. Most people fear a lifetime stigma, one that will come up over and over again (ever been asked if you voted for President Obama? Not only that, but one or both times?) and having to admit they voted for Trump or lie about it and feel guilty for lieing. If voting for Trump can be made personally worse than voting for Hillary, these votes may be saved.
The Democrats have run out of reasons not to vote for Trump because of what he is, isn’t, has done, will do or might do, has said, hasn’t said, might say, will say, did say,….I could go on. That may not be enough.
They may need to add joining (forever, remember) the awful crew who will have voted for him. I suppose we can expect them to add:
1.) The awful crew who even considered voting for him. 2.) The awful crew who were tolerant of anyone who voted for him. 3.) etc. Whatever it takes to get people to still vote for Hillary.
Hence, her statement.
This was a gaffe, not an intentional play. Just because she said the same phrase on Israeli TV is meaningless. It is just that it didn’t get noticed until she said it a second time.
This isn’t the sort of thing she will say to convince undecided voters. They don’t matter. She has a sufficient base and I can’t help but think that she has levers in the counting office as well. This is playing to her people, getting them riled up, maybe to *scare* undecided voters, not to convince them.
It works.
It is perfectly normal to be xenophobic, homophobic and Islamophobic for every reasonable person, that is, to oppose normalization of sexual perversion, to see dysfunctional and backward societies as such and oppose mass emigration from these hellholes into culturally advanced countries, and be aware about evils of Islam and its incompatibility with fundamental principles of modern civilization. I also do not consider white suprematism as such to be deplorable: there are very good reasons to believe in supremacy of Western civilization over all other retarded and primitive cultures.
Is there anyone in the “alt-right” with anywhere near the prominence and stature of Al Sharpton? I’m Jewish and David Duke is the last person in the world I would try to minimize or whitewash. But not even Duke to my knowledge has ever incited an antisemitic pogrom that led to the lynching of an innocent Jew, or has the blood of nearly a dozen people on his hands as does Sharpton who has been a frequent visitor to Obama’s White House.
Of course I am concerned when I hear of antisemitism in the “alt-right”. I will become more concerned when and if that reaches significantly beyond comments on internet discussion groups. But I will not let it blind me to the overwhelming hypocrisy of Democrats who have been calling every Republican candidate “ra-a-a-a-cist” for decades long before Trump. And to whatever extent there is a “white identity” movement in this country you can bet it has largely been incited by the Democrats who have been cynically exploiting identity politics for a long time now.
Adrian Day Says at 8:00 pm
“I am disappointed that you seemed to miss a salient point that is cuts to the heart of an unwarranted self righteousness on the left, that they are overflowing with a bigotry.”
Usually when a lefty accuses conservatives of an ugly trait I assume that the lefty is actually describing himself/herself. The exception to my rule is the Islamophobia. In my low opinion of the left I always assume that lefties love Islam because they admire the fact that Islam is a religion for racists, bigots, sexists and homophobes.
Frog Says at 9:20 pm
“I wonder, Neo what is so tactically smart (your words) about Hillary creating a phony link of Trump to white supremacists, who may number about 30,000 in toto.”
It is actually quite smart. Straw men are always the easiest opponents to destroy.
Why is it so deplorable to be backed by a tiny group of irrelevant white supremacists, but apparently it’s not even acceptable to point out the entirety of the other party’s base, their whole worldview, their positions on issues and their agenda is backed by and infused with totalitarian Communism, the genocidal ideology responsible for the death of 100 million ++ of their own citizens for disagreeing with the Marxist nomenklatura?
The entire playbook for their long march through the institutions was written by Marxists, their tactics designed by a Marxist, our university faculties packed with them, the most used history textbook written by a Marxist, the theories and philosophies underpinning Black Liberation Theology, feminism, radical environmentalism, unions, et al, ad nauseum – Marxist.
Obama, in his own damn autohagiography written by some guy who lived down the block from him, admits he sought out Communists on campus. It’s documented that the CPUSA takes an active part in Occupy, BLM, and every race, student and union riot.
But rightly accusing the Democrats or their supporters of being Marxists or Communists is not done. Why? Was the left so successful in demonizing one Senator (who highlighted the real problem of Soviet infiltration in our own government) from 60 years ago that it is now unacceptable to call a Commie a Commie, even when, like the guy that lived down the block from Obama, admits to being a Commie?
We can add the C-word to the n-word as having been driven out of public discourse by PC, itself just another obscene accomplishment of the C-words.
geokstr you are 100% correct! Very elegantly stated.
As for a new T-shirt, I would like one that says, “Je suis deplorable.”
That makes two statements in one.
Deplore the sin, not the sinners.
“mostly because it is believable and taints Trump in the eyes of more moderate voters” – Neo response to Frog re: linking trump to white supremacists
clinton would have best simply ask the question “Ask yourself why it is that trumps seems to attract all the white supremacists, xenophobes, bigouts … etc.?” And leave it in the listeners’ minds what to conclude.
trump unquestionably plays to these types of folks. He actively comingles the valid concerns and fears of many with a play to grievance and identity politics of the more extreme, fringe element.
This is a differentiation conservatives have been fighting the left on for years. trump makes explicit what had been merely a leftist false characterization, potentially setting back many years any headway conservatives have made.
In the end, doubtful that clinton will be hurt much by this, as the more the issue gets airplay, the more the question comes up about who trump’s supporters really are. (i.e. it is a game that trump has been play with some success).
The ones most “offended” are the ones already in trump’s court. The ones who are reluctantly so, just get reinforced as to why they are reluctant. They know full well it is not 50%, but still have to acknowledge some truth to the remark and be willing to “accept” that taint in order to support trump.
“bigots” not “bigouts”
Guess what?!? Per the NYT, Hillary used the “basket of deplorables” theme multiple times at fundraisers among the posh on Martha’s Vineyard in August while vacationing.
Not reported then, was it?
Big Maq: “…be willing to “accept” that taint in order to support trump.
Any Conservative worth their salt has been accepting so many “taints” from the liberal media for so many years that such “taints” are hardly noticed by them any more. What is noticed is the blatant bigotry shown by Hillary’s remark about those who oppose her.
Unlike some of Trump’s “bigotry” the strictest examination of her remark shows it to fit precisely the classic definition of bigotry. Anyone who denies that either doesn’t know the definition or is a partisan for Hillary. If those on the right mimic those on the left who officially forgive a walked-back bigoted remark by an opponent while still totally believing in their hearts that the original statement represents the true values of that person…
Can’t resist: ‘t ain’t a taint.
Two tar babies, HRC and DJT.
‘Saying “half” was a faux pas’
Using ‘half’ this way is a metaphor which means…a whole lot.
I can not think of anything hrc might say or do that will not be glossed over by the msm which is the sole information source of the LIV. What might do her in is her health.
Think Woodrow Wilson after his stroke (his wife essentially acting as President); Bill Clinton running the country for another 8 years. Who will provide cover for the Bimbo eruptions? /s
Odd choice of words — “deplorable” sounds like it was taken from the rhetoric of an old schoolmarm. Morally approbative, but in the Carry Nation school of do-gooderism. Besides, it rhymes with adorable. A poor choice of words from a dismal speaker.
And the “unredeemable” bit is pure tent revival talk. Amen! Praise the Lord. Oops, M ake that “the Lady”.
And now a cheery prognosis, Hillary may be suffering from aspirational pneumonia.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/rockin-pneumonia-a-unifying-diagnosis.php
Pneumonia caused by impaired swallowing reflex leading to food in lungs; cause of impaired swallowing reflex includes neuroliogical impairment.
I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, even Hillary.
When I read about the “basket of deplorables” I didn’t think too much of it. Typical left rhetoric. I cut cable so I either stream clips, or read.
But, when I had the opportunity to see the entire thing I was appalled. There was a lot of energy in that performance, she relished saying it and it was vicious. Big difference between reading and seeing Hillary Clinton deliver it. No walking that back to my satisfaction at all. She was a true believer.
@ notherbob2:
I don’t think the danger was ever that Dems would cross over to Trump (any more than they have, anyway). The danger is that they’ll stay home.
@ Sergey:
“I also do not consider white suprematism as such to be deplorable.”
White supremacism is deplorable because it is based on the idea of genetic superiority. There are loads of murderers who were white, both individuals and NATIONS in the history of the world; there is nothing inherently superior about being white.
There are IDEAS that are superior, but those aren’t tied to genetics. You also didn’t argue for the superiority of ideas, otherwise you wouldn’t need to include the word “white.”
FOAF Says:
Is there anyone in the “alt-right” with anywhere near the prominence and stature of Al Sharpton?
Hitler was nobody before he wasn’t.
As a relatively new movement (wiki dates the term “alt-right” to 2008), it hasn’t had time to develop infamous leaders yet. I’m not sure if Trump is deep enough in the movement to count as one of its leaders.
P.S. In order to find out what the alt-right will do with power, you have to give them power. By the time you realize that was a mistake, it’s too late.
Again, that’s exactly what happened with the Nazis.
Dennis Says:
In my low opinion of the left I always assume that lefties love Islam because they admire the fact that Islam is a religion for racists, bigots, sexists and homophobes.
IMO, it’s because they think it’s authentic. Like Sanders’ socialism it doesn’t seem to matter to them that it’s authentic lunacy. I think Democrats are phony hypocrites, surrounded by other phony hypocrites. They value authenticity because that’s something they have very little of.
Oh, and the gaping spiritual void created by progressivism hasn’t been filled by hedonism or materialism. That too. Of course, oikophobia won’t permit them to adopt a Western religion, but Eastern mysticism isn’t verboten to them.
geokstr Says:
Why is it so deplorable to be backed by a tiny group of irrelevant white supremacists…
Do Hillary’s supporters know that? Do they seem like the kind of intellectually curious sorts who will root around on the internet in search of differing opinions?
I’ll bet Hillary had never heard the term in her life before last week. They’re just some useful “out-group” to use as a scapegoat. It doesn’t even matter to her if they’re real or not.
@ Frog:
Guess what?!?
The media is in the tank for Hillary!
If you’re just finding that out, I see some rough days for you ahead. If you’re not just finding that out, why are you wasting our time with tautological nonsense? Are you going to tell us the sun rises in the east next? Or was this part of some poseur outrage kick you’re on?
OUTRAGE!!!!!1111!!!!!!!
“Hitler was nobody before he wasn’t.”
*Yawn* I was expecting that.
Matt: I clearly stated that white suprematism is not necessary based on idea of genetic supremacy, but on cultural supremacy, which is quite evident to me:
there are very good reasons to believe in supremacy of Western civilization over all other retarded and primitive cultures. What number of people who believe in supremacy of Western civilization also believe in genetic supremacy of White race, is completely unknown, but my guess that there are much more of the former rather than the latter.
Matt_SE is spending a lot of time talking to himself. He needs help.
I don’t know if anyone else does it, but I like to go back and re-read blog posts a day or two after the issue of the post arises. How well did the blogger hit the mark?
This post by neo is one of the best I have seen. She hit the mark and offered great detail and clarity. Very well done.
Matt_SE Says:
geokstr Says:
“Why is it so deplorable to be backed by a tiny group of irrelevant white supremacists…”
My point, of course, was not to suggest that it is good to be supported by any white supremacists, but why our side is so reluctant to call out the very large support base of their side for being Communists, who are far from insignificant and a clear and present danger to all of Gaia.
White supremacism is deplorable because it is based on the idea of genetic superiority. There are loads of murderers who were white, both individuals and NATIONS in the history of the world; there is nothing inherently superior about being white.
There are IDEAS that are superior, but those aren’t tied to genetics. You also didn’t argue for the superiority of ideas, otherwise you wouldn’t need to include the word “white.”
Except that in all of history, is it just a coincidence that all the people responsible for Western Civilization and its culture are those of pallor? It might not be strictly due to the lack of melanin, but more likely the development of Judeo-Christian moral and cultural values, and the preceding Greek and Roman civilizations, and they were coincidentally all whites too. It may even have started with the invention of farming in Sumeria, which allowed a small but significant % of the population to be freed from the labor intensive business of survival. Oh, wait, they were light-skinned too. Gosh, I’m beginning to see a pattern here!
Again, my point is not to claim superiority based on skin color, but we as whites have no reason to hang our heads in shame and blame ourselves as the supposed oppressors and exploiters of every other color that the Marxists brand us as.
I think the wisdom of Robert Heinlein is appropriate:
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Relative to the world’s population, whites are being relegated to the role of that tiny minority by Marxism. If we allow that to happen, I believe the rest of the planet is in for a very long run of bad luck.
Frog:
Regarding Matt_SE
Who are you talking to? Imaginary friends? 🙂
“Any Conservative worth their salt has been accepting so many “taints” from the liberal media for so many years that such “taints” are hardly noticed by them any more. What is noticed is the blatant bigotry shown by Hillary’s remark about those who oppose her. “ – nb
False premise.
It wasn’t something that had to be “accepted” because “our” leadership wasn’t going out of their way to court those folks. The left had always tried to “pin” that characterization on “us”.
Now that “we” have one who does, “we” get tainted by association, as, evidently, “we” think that is acceptable from “our” leader.
The sad part is that any legitimate concerns get lost in all this bruhaha.
Make no mistake, while it emboldens trump’s “base”, other voters understard clinton is exaggerating, there is a truth that they see, and as the controversy continues, it just gets reinforced. It is the same game that trump has been playing.
“My point, of course, was not to suggest that it is good to be supported by any white supremacists, but why our side is so reluctant to call out the very large support base of their side for being Communists, who are far from insignificant and a clear and present danger to all of Gaia.” – geokstr
A retort that is something like “Yeah, well you guys have a bunch of Communists!”, isn’t really a winning argument to the claim “our” side is supporting Supremacists.
It is one thing to not personally “accept” the scorn and blame that the left falsely doles out. It is quite another to stand by when one has folks who are saying and doing things very different from one’s principles on one’s behalf – i.e. a party leader who is courting Supremacists.
What will they do if Hillary drops out? Poof goes the argument “Well he’s certainly better than Hillary!” Stop feet, shake fist, wag finger, look down nose, and scowl!
Will the election really get interesting then?
“Those damn Morlocks! And to think they get to vote and everything, just like us Eloi! The nerve!”
How droll, expecting principles and discernment about those you chose to align yourself with. Lie down with the dogs wake up with their fleas. The ends always justify the means after all.
Big Maq Says:
“A retort that is something like “Yeah, well you guys have a bunch of Communists!”, isn’t really a winning argument to the claim “our” side is supporting Supremacists.”
Has Hillary claimed our side is “supporting” White Supremacists? I thought she accused Trump of being supported by them.
And you ignored my contention about the relative magnitude of the support of a small group of extremists roundly condemned by Republicans vs the huge underpinnings of an anti-democratic, genocidal totalitarian ideology like Marxism which is covertly and often overtly embraced by huge swaths of the so-called Democrat Party. That’s carrying the left’s false moral equivalency to the realms of the absurd.
@geokstr – Not ignoring, just responding to your claim that we ought to rebut by pointing to the “Communists”.
I used to think the number of “extremists” was extremely small and are not welcome here – would have sworn on my mother that was so. Good thing I didn’t have to.
To your point about relative sizes, nowadays, it is hard to tell just how big those groups are, as too many are too comfortable with trump playing to that crowd.
And, this is precisely the problem. Not 50%, but too d**n many are playing along, even if they are not personally in those extremist groups.
We can deflect the discussion to point to the Commies and such, but that doesn’t negate the issue.
Thus, every time this issue gets media attention, it drives home the point about what trump is doing.