6 ms·

I think he won because he was not overtly hostile to white people. Deplorables vote too.

krapp 8y ago
Here is Clinton's exact quote, taken from the Wikipedia article on the "basket of deplorables" remark[0]. "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists." Can you explain why white Trump supporters have chosen this as a banner to rally around rather than reject those elements and that ideology from their platform or their identity? Why is it wrong to deplore racism and hatred? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Ah, but you omitted the full context: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. 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 their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America." The key word that you omitted is "irredeemable"- basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs. What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable?
  - krapp 8y ago
    > basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs. Well, sure, if you omit the part where she admits to being "grossly generalistic" and where she says she believes only "some of those folks" are "irredeemable," then you might interpret it as a statement about people who hold certain beliefs rather than people who refuse to be persuaded from their beliefs... but that would be omitting the full context. >What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable? Nothing. Obviously, she was speaking in the context of campaign strategy, reading something more ominous into it would be disingenuous.
    - shawn 8y ago
      It's charisma 101. Don't insult your voter base.
      - krapp 8y ago
        Hillary Clinton has all the charisma of a sack full of angry cats but I don't think she did insult her voter base. She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base. Angry, disenfranchised rural white voters and their embrace of Trump's populism by way of race-culture supremacy/identity as a reaction against America's demographic and cultural shift has been thoroughly documented. Also, her description of the rationale for the rest of Trump voters is one that Trump voters themselves admit to. What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable."
        LyndsySimon 8y ago
        > She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things. > What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable." Trump voters know other Trump voters. They look around themselves and don't see "half" of them being those things - therefore, they infer that Hillary Clinton had misidentified many of their friends as being those things.
        krapp 8y ago
        >She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things. Was that bigoted? Yes, and she paid for it. Imprecise, yes, but I don't think she was literally claiming 50% of Trump supporters were those things. But was it entirely untrue? I lived through the same election cycle as everyone else. I've seen the racist elements of American white supremacism and the alt-right embrace Trump for whatever reason, and I've seen the contempt in which some Trump supporters appear to hold the rest of the country. They voted for a man who has said far, far worse things than Hillary Clinton, yet it's more important for them to form solidarity with racists than to admit that maybe she wasn't entirely wrong. When you're willing to get in bed with swine you won't wake up smelling like roses.
- i_am_nomad 8y ago
  I would question your premise. Clinton, and the left wing and Democratic Party, have taken a number of policies/opinions and labeled them to be racist. It’s part of a particularly odious strategy: make a bold stand against “hate,” then describe everything your opponent stands for as hateful, regardless of the reality.
  - krapp 8y ago
    What non-racist policies and opinions, specifically, are you referring to?
    - RightMillennial 8y ago
      Here's a big one: illegal immigration. 1. The US-Mexico border wall. The purpose of the wall is to prevent people from illegally crossing the border to enter the US. Say what you will about its effectiveness. I doubt it would be that effective and think our money is better spent elsewhere. But if you support it, you'll be branded a racist. 2. Deporting illegal aliens. If you agree that people who are in the US illegally should be deported, you'll be branded a racist. Race has nothing to do with it. It's the legality of it. If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed. You'll also be accused of hating all immigrants (i.e., ones here legally) which has no basis.
      - Izkata 8y ago
        > If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed. So on this particular point, I was clicking through a bunch of Youtube videos last week while bored and saw one in particular that stuck out. The particular point was about refugees, not illegal immigrants, but it seems that at least some people are absolutely convinced that there's already an authority above the US government that makes enforceable laws, and that Trump/etc is just ignoring those laws. No amount of arguments or explanation during the video could convince the person that there is no such law.

Here is Clinton's exact quote, taken from the Wikipedia article on the "basket of deplorables" remark[0]. "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists." Can you explain why white Trump supporters have chosen this as a banner to rally around rather than reject those elements and that ideology from their platform or their identity? Why is it wrong to deplore racism and hatred? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

creaghpatr 8y ago
Ah, but you omitted the full context: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. 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 their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America." The key word that you omitted is "irredeemable"- basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs. What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable?
- krapp 8y ago
  > basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs. Well, sure, if you omit the part where she admits to being "grossly generalistic" and where she says she believes only "some of those folks" are "irredeemable," then you might interpret it as a statement about people who hold certain beliefs rather than people who refuse to be persuaded from their beliefs... but that would be omitting the full context. >What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable? Nothing. Obviously, she was speaking in the context of campaign strategy, reading something more ominous into it would be disingenuous.
  - shawn 8y ago
    It's charisma 101. Don't insult your voter base.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Hillary Clinton has all the charisma of a sack full of angry cats but I don't think she did insult her voter base. She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base. Angry, disenfranchised rural white voters and their embrace of Trump's populism by way of race-culture supremacy/identity as a reaction against America's demographic and cultural shift has been thoroughly documented. Also, her description of the rationale for the rest of Trump voters is one that Trump voters themselves admit to. What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable."
      - LyndsySimon 8y ago
        > She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things. > What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable." Trump voters know other Trump voters. They look around themselves and don't see "half" of them being those things - therefore, they infer that Hillary Clinton had misidentified many of their friends as being those things.
        krapp 8y ago
        >She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things. Was that bigoted? Yes, and she paid for it. Imprecise, yes, but I don't think she was literally claiming 50% of Trump supporters were those things. But was it entirely untrue? I lived through the same election cycle as everyone else. I've seen the racist elements of American white supremacism and the alt-right embrace Trump for whatever reason, and I've seen the contempt in which some Trump supporters appear to hold the rest of the country. They voted for a man who has said far, far worse things than Hillary Clinton, yet it's more important for them to form solidarity with racists than to admit that maybe she wasn't entirely wrong. When you're willing to get in bed with swine you won't wake up smelling like roses.
i_am_nomad 8y ago
I would question your premise. Clinton, and the left wing and Democratic Party, have taken a number of policies/opinions and labeled them to be racist. It’s part of a particularly odious strategy: make a bold stand against “hate,” then describe everything your opponent stands for as hateful, regardless of the reality.
- krapp 8y ago
  What non-racist policies and opinions, specifically, are you referring to?
  - RightMillennial 8y ago
    Here's a big one: illegal immigration. 1. The US-Mexico border wall. The purpose of the wall is to prevent people from illegally crossing the border to enter the US. Say what you will about its effectiveness. I doubt it would be that effective and think our money is better spent elsewhere. But if you support it, you'll be branded a racist. 2. Deporting illegal aliens. If you agree that people who are in the US illegally should be deported, you'll be branded a racist. Race has nothing to do with it. It's the legality of it. If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed. You'll also be accused of hating all immigrants (i.e., ones here legally) which has no basis.
    - Izkata 8y ago
      > If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed. So on this particular point, I was clicking through a bunch of Youtube videos last week while bored and saw one in particular that stuck out. The particular point was about refugees, not illegal immigrants, but it seems that at least some people are absolutely convinced that there's already an authority above the US government that makes enforceable laws, and that Trump/etc is just ignoring those laws. No amount of arguments or explanation during the video could convince the person that there is no such law.