• Clinton: Half of Trump's Supporters are a "Basket of Deplorables"
    209 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51027717]because making sweeping, condescending generalizations about the opposition without trying to understand their viewpoint is the surest sign of a healthy and pragmatic worldview, right?[/QUOTE] If only there was one Trump supporter out there who could express his viewpoint in an intelligent and informed manner. Still waiting one.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51027241]Thanks..? [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] I agree with this. I thought it was weird that Clinton would choose to blanket Trumps supporters at this stage with such negative labels, normally you dont attack the other candidates supporters because you are trying to win them to your side.[/QUOTE] No. People, jesus christ. You're never going to win someone's supporters, you always aim for the fucking undecided morons who can't make up their mind and flip flop more often then Romney. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] However; on the flipside, her insulting these voters supporting Trump will not do her any favors and she actually did the same shit with Bernie supporters comparing them to 'brodudes' which the media ran with and began [I]harrassing[/I] Bernie over till he dismissed his own supporters. And she's gonna get away with it again, because she's perfect obviously.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51027241]Thanks..? [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] I agree with this. I thought it was weird that Clinton would choose to blanket Trumps supporters at this stage with such negative labels, normally you dont attack the other candidates supporters because you are trying to win them to your side.[/QUOTE] You can't win over someone who will never vote for you, so why bother? There is not a single blue collar republican in this country who would vote for her. Source: My father, a blue collar republican who hates Hillary Clinton with every fiber of his being.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51027867]Hahahahahaha nice of you to miss out how she describes the other half:[/QUOTE] Honestly with both statements it makes a pretty clear picture of Trumps base as I've experienced it anecdotally. Maybe a little more let down with the establishment, and a little less xenophobic, but generally yeah that's the two camps. For every one person I talk about who supports Trump because they feel the last 8-16 years of establishment politics have failed them (a dubious charge, but not one I often contest) there is another person who supports him simply because he will keep the bad brown people away.
"Half of Trump's supporters are xenophobic assholes, and the other half are only voting for him because he's not me." yeah, pretty much.
how about you post the rest of the quote [quote]But the other basket—and I know this because I see friends from all over America here—I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas—as well as, you know, New York and California—but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.[/quote]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51027713]Brexit seems to have a new rival for Most Embarrassing Use of Democratic Rights 2016.[/QUOTE] The fact that you find the "Use of Democratic Rights" to be "embarrassing" says a lot about you and little about democracy.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51027557]My post was referencing the 2012 election where Romney made his infamous "47%" remark.[/QUOTE] I just read up on that ("47% of Americans are on welfare and will never vote for me" ) and forgot that he made that remark. All I remember from the Romney campaign was "binders full of women". All of the critics I see on twittee are saying that attacking a candidates voter base is campaign suicide. Even if (theoretically) Romney and Clinton were right, its normally not something you let the public know.
This is simply a tactic to paint Trump supporters as negatively as possible so that people feel less inclined to publicly announce their support in fear of being labelled the [i]bad-word-phobicism[/i] of the week. It's a cheap tactic that does work because even without actual data, a lot of people in this thread take anecdotes as facts and it's not like the rabid Hillary supporters are any better, if you want take anecdotes as indicative of a trend, so it does seem to work. I don't understand how someone can support this type of comment from a candidate. Do you think it's a good trait for a candidate to think that ~20% of the population or more is a "Basket of Deplorables"? I mean, replace voter base to any other choice that the population makes and you should see the issue. What if you had a candidate that said that "every person who listens to rap music is a basket of deplorables" would that also be an okay statement?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51029045] I don't understand how someone can support this type of comment from a candidate. Do you think it's a good trait for a candidate to think that ~20% of the population or more is a "Basket of Deplorables"? I mean, replace voter base to any other choice that the population makes and you should see the issue. What if you had a candidate that said that "every person who listens to rap music is a basket of deplorables" would that also be an okay statement?[/QUOTE] It's alright when my team does it. It's a foul if your team does it.
[QUOTE=bunguer;51029045]This is simply a tactic to paint Trump supporters as negatively as possible so that people feel less inclined to publicly announce their support in fear of being labelled the [i]bad-word-phobicism[/i] of the week. It's a cheap tactic that does work because even without actual data, a lot of people in this thread take anecdotes as facts and it's not like the rabid Hillary supporters are any better, if you want take anecdotes as indicative of a trend, so it does seem to work. I don't understand how someone can support this type of comment from a candidate. Do you think it's a good trait for a candidate to think that ~20% of the population or more is a "Basket of Deplorables"? I mean, replace voter base to any other choice that the population makes and you should see the issue. What if you had a candidate that said that "every person who listens to rap music is a basket of deplorables" would that also be an okay statement?[/QUOTE] Okay, let's hear it straight, then. What *is* Trump if not a lying, pandering, immature, insecure bigot and shyster? What does he bring to the table in terms of beneficial policies for the common American, rather than for big corporations and the energy industry? What, in turn, does that say about the mentality of a large number of his supporters? Tactic? No, it's the truth. Which is rare coming from Hillary.
it's worth noting that obama made a very similar comment during the primaries in 2008 except arguably even worse, because it could be interpreted as an attack on religion: [quote]You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.[/quote]
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51028889]The fact that you find the "Use of Democratic Rights" to be "embarrassing" says a lot about you and little about democracy.[/QUOTE] Get your eyes checked mate, I never said that. What I'm saying is that [I]specific uses[/I] of one's democratic rights are embarrassing. If you're given a choice on something that is of significant importance for your country and you deliberately pick the option that fucks you in the ass with a lamppost without even making any research on the consequences of that choice then yes, that's pretty fucking embarrassing.
Liberals in 2016: "fuck the white working class and your rust belts, we are upper class ~philanthropists~ up to date with PC and we hate your problematic and backwards culture, but love your productivity and work ethic when there's a race to the bottom and we need money to throw at a very American race + class issue we exploit for votes" Then dems wonder why this demographic has been lost to the GOP since the collapse of the new deal coalition and in general struggle with voter turnout, particularly among millenials coming of working age, who are just a basket of issues as shown in various stats that reflect on how this system is failing. There's no winds of change, just a pessimistic smog choking us This world sucks and it shows in the election
[QUOTE=_Axel;51029102]Get your eyes checked mate, I never said that. What I'm saying is that [I]specific uses[/I] of one's democratic rights are embarrassing. If you're given a choice on something that is of significant importance for your country and you deliberately pick the option that fucks you in the ass with a lamppost without even making any research on the consequences of that choice then yes, that's pretty fucking embarrassing.[/QUOTE] Both Brexit and the upcoming US election are examples of democracy. I don't see how you could find the outcomes "embarrassing" unless you disagree with the fundamentals of democracy itself. [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;51029129]Liberals in 2016: "fuck the white working class and your rust belts, we are upper class ~philanthropists~ up to date with PC and we hate your problematic and backwards culture, but love your productivity when there's a race to the bottom and we need money to throw at a very American race + class issue we exploit for votes" Then dems wonder why this demographic has been lost to the GOP since the collapse of the new deal coalition and in general struggle with voter turnout, particularly among millenials coming of working age, who are just a basket of issues proven in various stats that reflect how this system is failing This world sucks and it shows in the election[/QUOTE] I've been waiting for this post. A lot of modern liberals are no different from the cartoon stereotype of an elitist, 19th century British aristocrat, who peers and sneers down at the lesser people who don't realize how "uncultured" and "uncivilized" they are. And yet they still find it difficult to grasp why the working class won't agree with them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51029071]Okay, let's hear it straight, then. What *is* Trump if not a lying, pandering, immature, insecure bigot and shyster? [B]What does he bring to the table in terms of beneficial policies for the common American, rather than for big corporations and the energy industry? [/B] What, in turn, does that say about the mentality of a large number of his supporters? Tactic? No, it's the truth. Which is rare coming from Hillary.[/QUOTE] Every single thread regarding Trump has debated this, and it normally means the article in the thread gets ignored. Let's not derail this thread. The issue is that politicians aren't supposed to attack [I]the voters[/I]. [QUOTE]Clinton went on to say that some of these people were "irredeemable" and [B]"not America."[/B][/QUOTE] In Clinton's mind 20% of Americans aren't even American because they are ____. Nevermind that these American citizens have families, jobs, follow American laws, practice American culture, and follow American traditions, because they grew up and now live in the USA. This is especially rich coming from someone who brought an illegal immigrant and her daughter to endorse her at the DNC. She basically said she doesn't care about that 20% of Americans dont matter at all, and that she puts [I]her voters[/I], not [I]the voters[/I], at the top of her priorities. An attack on [I]the voters[/I] is campaign suicide. She started attacking the alt-right and her numbers are dropping, and yet she keeps attacking the voters. Its almost Trump worthy in that she's doubling down on her position, but I don't remember Trump attacking any other candidate's supporters and bouncing back.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51029071]Okay, let's hear it straight, then. What *is* Trump if not a lying, pandering, immature, insecure bigot and shyster? What, in turn, does that say about the mentality of a large number of his supporters? Tactic? No, it's the truth. Which is rare coming from Hillary.[/QUOTE] How about full-on unfair competition for candidates of the same party? How about having the most violent supporters that resort to physical attacks just because other people don't share the same ideas? How about the constant pushes to vote for her, from the media and also from herself, because of what she has between her legs and not because what has between her ears? If anything, that's actually pretty sexist when you think about it. Trump lies and says incredibly stupid shit (e.g. reluctance to acknowledge global warming) but do let me know actual instances of actual racist and sexist policies. I'm not so much of a Trump supporter but an anti-Hillary supporter.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51029130]Both Brexit and the upcoming US election are examples of democracy. I don't see how you could find the outcomes "embarrassing" unless you disagree with the fundamentals of democracy itself.[/QUOTE] I don't see how I couldn't? Why does a decision being the result of the democratic process somehow prevents it from being embarrassing? That makes no sense whatsoever.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;51029100]it's worth noting that obama made a very similar comment during the primaries in 2008 except arguably even worse, because it could be interpreted as an attack on religion:[/QUOTE] Obama at least gave an explanation that hard times make hard people. Successful or not Obama has at least tried appealing to them because he wanted to take care of all Americans. And even if he didn't earn their appeal he still passed stuff like ACA which would benefit these poor communities. Clinton's explanation was that Trump is a ____ and all of the ____ists are happy now that their views are mainstream, and that appealing to them is a lost cause.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51029130]Both Brexit and the upcoming US election are examples of democracy. I don't see how you could find the outcomes "embarrassing" unless you disagree with the fundamentals of democracy itself.[/QUOTE] One of the "fundamentals of democracy" is an educated population. Considering that the Brexit campaign used outright blatant lies to get it passed, and one of the groups with the highest percentage of leave voters (farmers) actually has the most to lose from it and weren't even aware of that, I'd say Brexit is not only an embarrassment, but an outright failure of the democratic system.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51029181]I don't see how I couldn't? Why does a decision being the result of the democratic process somehow prevents it from being embarrassing? That makes no sense whatsoever.[/QUOTE] What's embarrassing is not the result of the democratic process, but that the situation that led up to it forced the result in the first place (Brexit/Trump). In our case, the American political system has gotten so bad, and failed so many, that a loudmouthed celebrity steak salesman has become the best choice for fixing it.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51029208] In our case, the American political system has gotten so bad, and failed so many, that a loudmouthed celebrity steak salesman has become the best choice for fixing it.[/QUOTE] No he hasn't lol people just think he has.
[Quote]A lot of modern liberals are no different from the cartoon stereotype of an elitist, 19th century British aristocrat, who peers and sneers down at the lesser people who don't realize how "uncultured" and "uncivilized" they are. And yet they still find it difficult to grasp why the working class won't agree with them.[/quote] They are exactly no different, both saw themselves as an enlightened vanguard of the future, one nobody but them really want. To quote even the conservative national review: [Quote]The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible[/quote] This demographic, which built america, is being thrown into the dustbin of history because it 1) economically doesn't support our eternal growth philosophy in a globalized world because they don't have enough children, want good jobs, etc 2) socially is allergic to the demographic etc changes required to accomplish the structural economic changes that have been taking place since the 70s. In this world they are holding onto their nation-states as the last form of solidarity as capitalism leaves behind the trade union and the country for something more dystopian in its materialism and atomization In response, there is a growing convergence between global elites up top and SJWs on the ground, as epitomized by the clinton campaign which simultaneously is funded by banks unleashed by Bill and what he did with glass steagal, and panders to identities not based in class unleashed by the legacy of the 60s new left. Together they are squeezing a large group of Americans who have turned to national alternatives to find economic stability and integral social bonds that trump our race + class issue and help provide social mobility
[QUOTE=Conscript;51029221]They are exactly no different, both saw themselves as an enlightened vanguard of the future, one nobody but them really want. To quote even the conservative national review: This demographic, which built america, is being thrown into the dustbin of history because it 1) economically doesn't support our eternal growth philosophy in a globalized world because they don't have enough children, want good jobs, etc 2) socially is allergic to the demographic etc changes required to accomplish the structural economic changes that have been taking place since the 70s. In this world they are holding onto their nation-states as the last form of solidarity as capitalism leaves behind the trade union and the country for something more dystopian in its materialism and atomization In response, there is a growing convergence between global elites up top and SJWs on the ground, as epitomized by the clinton campaign which simultaneously is funded by banks unleashed by Bill and what he did with glass steagal, and panders to identities not based in class unleashed by the legacy of the 60s new left. Together they are squeezing a large group of Americans who have turned to national alternatives to find economic stability and integral social bonds that trump our race + class issue and help provide social mobility[/QUOTE] Is everything out of your mouth always going to sound like a conspiracy [editline]10th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51026589]and please tell me how Trump isn't beholden to the globalist overlords and will free you from your oppression and shackles [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] specifics, not some trite bullshit with some flowery prose talking about the proletariat and the bourgeois, real specifics.[/QUOTE]
It's still a tremendously stupid thing to insult your country's voters, even if they won't vote for you, especially when the election heads down into an establishment vs non-establishment fight. Because insulting your opponent's voterbase worked out really damn well for the European Union this year. Juncker's cadre also thought that he could get away with ignoring one (albeit non-binding) referendum, the one in the Netherlands about Ukraine and the EU, which honestly should have been taken as a warning that the public opinion of the EU is waning throughout Europe. Instead, he and his cadre pretended that the results of that referendum didn't matter anyway, only to get surprised when Great Britain promptly voted for the Brexit more than a month later. No, don't give the 'uneducated voters are to blame' excuse, the EU honchos thought they could just wing it, and the Remain campaign was absolutely in shambles the entire way. But I'll give my thoughts on that another time. The thing is, right now, in many western countries, people feel let down by the establishment. They feel like the establishment politicians are completely detached from their usual lives, yet they keep making drastic decisions which, in some cases, do make stuff actively worse for the average citizen. This sentiment is especially growing in Europe, and I ain't surprised why. The current batch of the EU leading chairs are really completely detached from the lives of the average citizen, and what especially doesn't help either, is their astounding arrogance about it. Doesn't help either that they seem to have genuine contempt and disdain towards the average citizen as well. Just look at some of Juncker's, Sutherland's and Schultze's quotes about the different democracies in Europe. They just think that people like getting their vote and voice potentially overriden by the likes of Juncker and his clique. They really don't seem to realise why people are so opposed against them over the last few years. It just reeks of incredible arrogance on their part, where they want to boss the citizens of Europe around from their nice ivory towers in Brussels, which is, may I add, not in the bests of states either under the EU's leadership. And that's exactly why people Trump are getting more and more support. While establishment politicians like Clinton are making remarks like this, where they call a huge amount of the overall voting base ''a basket of deplorables'', who don't deserve to be listened to, all what people like Trump have to do is to emphasise yet again, that it is the people's vote that count. Furthermore, this is a very bad moment for Clinton to make remarks like this, after Trump has really shown that he could be presidential in the last few weeks, and most importantly, is more there for the average civilian than Clinton has been in the last few years, or is at least, really making that impression. It has even gotten to the point where certain organisations are cutting the feed of some of those events, like the Reuters camera crew in Detroit, when Trump visited a church there. Meanwhile, Clinton goes on a rant about how Alex Jones and Nigel Farage are literally Hitler in one of the few speeches she has given. And then goes on to make this ''basket of deplorables'' remark. For anyone who was still on the fence, or independent voters, it does give the impression that Clinton has kinda lost the plot. What makes it even stupider for Clinton to say it, is how Trump is pulling double digit leads in the independent vote, which is the reason why Trump is pulling the overall gap bit by bit again. About one of the dumbest things you can say in such a case, is to say that people who don't vote for your country don't deserve to be listened to anyway. That does show a massive amount of disdain and arrogance on Clinton's part. Or that ''only'' half of them don't deserve to be listened to, but how far does that apply? Does that mean that about 26% of the US military does exist out of ''deplorables''? Or that the voices of law enforcement members or hospital workers don't count if they voted for the ''wrong'' party or candidate? Because that sounds like a very deplorable act to me, and no way to rule over a country anywhere near decently. How does she expect to ever gain the trust of people she called ''deplorable''? [QUOTE=bunguer;51029045]This is simply a tactic to paint Trump supporters as negatively as possible so that people feel less inclined to publicly announce their support in fear of being labelled the [i]bad-word-phobicism[/i] of the week. It's a cheap tactic that does work because even without actual data, a lot of people in this thread take anecdotes as facts and it's not like the rabid Hillary supporters are any better, if you want take anecdotes as indicative of a trend, so it does seem to work. I don't understand how someone can support this type of comment from a candidate. Do you think it's a good trait for a candidate to think that ~20% of the population or more is a "Basket of Deplorables"? I mean, replace voter base to any other choice that the population makes and you should see the issue. What if you had a candidate that said that "every person who listens to rap music is a basket of deplorables" would that also be an okay statement?[/QUOTE] She could have called them ''superpredators who need to be brought to heel'' again. It wouldn't be the first time Clinton has referred towards another group of people like that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51029239]Is everything out of your mouth always going to sound like a conspiracy[/QUOTE] What conspiracy? These people have been judged to be on the wrong side of history, which is wholly enabled by the fact their interests do not make money The nativist working class is an angry sleeping giant only america's endless culture wars and a global race to the bottom can create and wake up. And it's happening.
If you think Trump is rich enough to not be beholden to the globalist SJW overlords you're so consistently rambling on about, you're just ignorant. Michael Bloomberg, a fairly insigificant billionaire, could buy Trump at least 5 times over. He could buy a Trump as a decoration. That's how [B]NOT RICH[/B] Trump is in the scheme of billionaires. You think he's not beholden? If you think you're "Showing the man and stopping the status quo" you're just fucking wrong. Trump is the status quo as much as Hilary is.
"Hey our political system sucks. I know what we need! LETS JUST MAKE A MOCKERY OF IT" Fuck me mate.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51029161]Every single thread regarding Trump has debated this, and it normally means the article in the thread gets ignored. Let's not derail this thread. The issue is that politicians aren't supposed to attack [I]the voters[/I]. In Clinton's mind 20% of Americans aren't even American because they are ____. Nevermind that these American citizens have families, jobs, follow American laws, practice American culture, and follow American traditions, because they grew up and now live in the USA.[/QUOTE] i must have missed the "n" at the end of "America" there, because it seems a lot to me like she's saying Trump's goals contradict the founding principles of America. correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure you have a Supreme Court to decide if things go against the nature of your country, most often represented by your constitution? so certain actions, i.e. gun control or bans on abortion, are agreed to be "not America" and so aren't carried out by the federal government? because there's certain ideals your county was founded on, and just living there doesn't mean that the average person necessarily understands them, so you need to clarify sometimes. yeah?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51029239]Is everything out of your mouth always going to sound like a conspiracy[/QUOTE] What exactly are you denying here? White working-class America hasn't been disregarded as a demographic? They aren't seen as a socially backwards and economically unproductive class of people? That there isn't an obvious alliance between SJWs and global elites (Brexit completely proved this to be true)? What part of this "conspiracy" is fabricated?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.