Hillary's 47% Moment

[Minimalist]

[Mermaid]

Hiccup

Either way, all Americans would have to be lobotomised, because neither one of them is good for the future of the USA.

She was in the white house for 8 years and they did very well together. She will be fine as president. Don't buy into the smear propaganda.

[Minimalist]

Hillary's biggest problem is that she is a boring policy wonk.  Sadly, like middle school students who expect their teachers to entertain them, the 'Murrican voter cannot handle serious discussions of issues.  Too complex for people who only have the attention span to read bumper stickers.

That's why the republicunts have been running out the AssKlown Kar for the last several election cycles and will continue to do so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Pat Mustard]

I think Hillary's problem is that she hears this from her supporters all the time. She has to be inundated with the idea that Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists and it must be sooo tempting for her to say so. The problem is that at the same time you are saying that you are a uniter, you can't go calling a large percentage of the country racists. Which is a pretty strong accusation.

That's because a large chunk of them are. Remember Trump's constituency is the tea party wing of the republicans, which is essentially the rump of the dixiecrats and other southern racists and religious fundamentalists (most of whom are deeply racist themselves). At least a significant minority of his committed voters are going to be racist.

[Pat Mustard]

And giving Trump and his supporters a free pass on his ideology is? Demonising your opponents has had a long trend of success in politics, at least with Clinton if she's mischaracterising, islt's by downplaying Trump's tendencies.

I'm thinking that your first sentence suffers an evacuated middle, and your second doesn't make sense to me -- would you mind clarifying it?

The second sentence is simply pointing out the long history of political parties demonising their opponents. It is a very successful history at that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm thinking that your first sentence suffers an evacuated middle, and your second doesn't make sense to me -- would you mind clarifying it?

The second sentence is simply pointing out the long history of political parties demonising their opponents. It is a very successful history at that.

The thing is, she's not demonizing her opponent, she's demonizing his supporters. There is a difference, one which the wise politician observes.

A group will offer one head on the chopping block and move on, but if you sound like you want all their heads there, you've probably made your own problem. If someone insults me, I'm not likely to reconsider my position. Buying into the politics of exclusion is a risky, and usually unsound, move.

[Kosh]

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized some of Republican Donald Trump’s supporters during a speech at a New York City fundraiser on Friday night.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.”

 
She probably didn't need to go down this road.   It's not like you can shame a Drumpf supporter into voting for someone else.

[Minimalist]

IOW - they don't mind BEING deplorable but it hurts their racist feelings when someone says it aloud.

Fuck them.

[RobertE]

IOW - they don't mind BEING deplorable but it hurts their racist feelings when someone says it aloud.

Fuck them.

Why should it hurt their feelings? Don't tell me the Yanks are that sensitive? I've heard it all now.