3 ms·
The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as c
by MrZongle2 10y ago
The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue.
Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.
If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?
- odonnellryan 10y agoI do not think that was a good comment from Hillary, but I absolutely do not think this disqualifies her from being president: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/10/hillary-clinton-half-of-trumps-supporters-go-into-the-basket-of-deplorables-video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/10/hillar...
- int_19h 10y agoIt's not about the number, but rather about the accuracy of the statement. I don't have any problem with what Clinton said. Based on the numerous polls, she is absolutely correct. It may not be a politically prudent thing to say, but that's not an ethical matter.
- Latty 10y agoIf a sizeable portion of the country is contemptible or wretched, why on earth would she not say it? It's not dismissing them, it's saying they hold contemptible views. Just as, at one point in time, I'd imagine 50% of the population were in favour of slavery. It's not a good political move, but it's telling the truth.