6 ms·

I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". That's calling for my liquidation, a major thing from the

• gdulli 10y ago
  > I didn't like being called irredeemable as part of her "basket of deplorables" who "are not America". Xenophobia, prejudice, and intolerance aren't what Clinton sees as America. If those things are what you see as America, that's your right. In which case there's an irreconcilable gap between you and Clinton and you need to accept that she's going to consider you as standing outside of those values that she has always taken for granted as broadly accepted. Be the thing you want others to see you as, or else accept the consequences of being seen a different way. Don't be surprised or complain about it.
  • DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    >Be the thing you want others to see you as, or else accept the consequences of being seen a different way. Don't be surprised or complain about it. Nazi to the Jews: Be Aryan, or face the consequences.
    • hga 10y ago
      Indeed, except, of course, the word "irredeemable" signals that it was just as impossible for them as it is for us.
• ashark 10y ago
  To be fair, she was saying that to acknowledge to her supporters that yes, many Trump supporters are irredeemable as a preface to saying that many others are redeemable and do have real concerns that Democrats ought to try to address, or try to communicate the ways that they already try to address them better. I don't think there was anything wrong with that part of that speech per se, though in the context of a political campaign it was absolutely a dumb thing to say, even though the sentiment was both accurate and aimed at encouraging reaching out to the other side. Someone should have known what kind of sound-bite that section of the speech was going to be cut down to and heavily reworded it so that wouldn't happen.
  • hga 10y ago
    You expect me to personally give a shit that there's another basket containing people she thinks can be reeducated, when I and my family are in the basket marked for liquidation? Note also how that seriously personalized the campaign for us deplorables, clearly moved it to a "will crawl over broken glass to get to the polling booth"; existential threats will do that, you know. Even if you don't accept my analysis of the coding of her language, how can you tell me with a straight face she was "encouraging reaching out to the" irredeemables? That's very specific religious language, per Merriam Webster "not able to be saved, helped, or made better". What were they supposed to do in this/after this "reaching out"??? And whatever happened to being the President of all Americans? Even Obama shows every sign of believing that, despite his looking down his nose on us bitter clingers, treating us as "enemies" to be defeated and the like. That's why my family voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary (by then McCain had the Republican one locked up and Missouri has open primaries). Obama is no prize, but he's not a fraction as dangerous as Hillary and to a lessor extend Bill. We had lived through and remembered their first co-presidency all too well.
    • ashark 10y ago
      > You expect me to personally give a shit that there's another basket containing people she thinks can be reeducated, when I and my family are in the basket marked for liquidation? Note also how that seriously personalized the campaign for us deplorables, clearly moved it to a "will crawl over broken glass to get to the polling booth"; existential threats will do that, you know. It seemed pretty clear to me that the "deplorables" were the side of his support that made him "not a nazi, but the first choice of nazis", ya know? Considering what trump was doing with his half-courting but no-I'm-totally-not some fairly disgusting groups and sentiments, and what she actually said in the speech isn't really out there and the qualifiers leave her comments accurate and even generous: http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorable... I mean, she enumerated which part of his base she meant to put in that group, and allowed that some portion of even that part could be reached, let alone the ones who were not put in the deplorables "basket" and have legit problems with e.g. how globalization has left them rather screwed or with political corruption or who actually do want stronger borders but not because they dislike Hispanics (putting aside that she was a candidate especially unqualified to reach anyone for whom those and related things are major concerns—which is probably why someone as incredibly unelectable and also not terribly well positioned to credibly claim those sorts of positions as Trump managed to soundly beat her). As for "re-education", the language for the rest was pretty standard "these people aren't awful and have real problems and we haven't done a good enough job of telling them how we'll address those" stuff. "Re-education" is... kinda "we're gonna get herded into FEMA camps! No really, I read it on the Internet!" territory. Reading that "coding" doesn't strike me as reasonable, no. However, though the speech wasn't inaccurate and the message was a good one to deliver to her base, it was really stupid in the context of this political race, and thinking it'd play well when cut down to a few words could speak to a certain arrogance which I wouldn't be surprised to find was very much present in Clinton and her campaign. Expecting any of the nuance of the speech, so central to its meaning, to be preserved was really, really dumb. > That's why my family voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary (by then McCain had the Republican one locked up and Missouri has open primaries). Obama is no prize, but he's not a fraction as dangerous as Hillary and to a lessor extend Bill. We had lived through and remembered their first co-presidency all too well. Aside from Greenspan maybe not doing enough to cool off the "irrational exuberance" of the stock market to make the later crash more mild, what were the big errors made by Bill Clinton's administration that made it worse than any other typical 8-year period in recent US history? I'm struggling to think of a recent-ish president who didn't have more serious scandals and blunders than Clinton. Carter—generally ineffective; Reagan—Iran/Contra and related were pretty awful; Bush Sr. wasn't terrible but got screwed by the business cycle and a too-public pledge to stick to excessively limited tax policy, he'd be a good contender for "not worse than Clinton" I guess; W. had Iraq which was ZOMGWTF bad, and his tax cuts were probably not the right call and left a giant shadow on the budget; Obama may or may not have been able to guide or halt the Arab Spring and related events to some better outcome, but I'm leaning toward "may" and will go ahead and call that worse than any blunders of Clinton's that I can recall. I think the jury's still out on things like permanent normalization of trade with China, which was probably going to happen regardless of whether President was D or R at that time, and besides, that was near the end of his second term and not really something you'd "live through" during his presidency, as if it made one's life a struggle at that time. What was so unusually bad about the presidency '93-'00? Seriously curious, not a rhetorical question. [EDIT] minor grammar fixes