"Basket of Deplorables" or How the Beauty of Language Dies.

[funinspace]

Is the term "basket of deplorables" the most in-artful term you ever heard coined in a presidential campaign? Forget being a running candidate that paint millions of voters with the name deplorable, but just the phrase itself. WTF is that? and months of hearing it hasn't made it sound any better to me.

Of course it was a stupid thing to say. I guess it would have been all good with those 'outraged' deplorables if she had simply added "and I assume some are good people", right? But it is comical that HRC got railed for making this one insulting comment, when someone else was regularly and un-apologetically letting all sorts of noxious sounds come out...

"When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,"

"Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!"

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is the term "basket of deplorables" the most in-artful term you ever heard coined in a presidential campaign? Forget being a running candidate that paint millions of voters with the name deplorable, but just the phrase itself. WTF is that? and months of hearing it hasn't made it sound any better to me.

My first exposure to George W. Bush was him saying in a debate (emphasis mine):

"It's a school full of so-called at risk children. It's how we, unfortunately, label certain children. It means basically they can't learn."

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it was a stupid thing to say. I guess it would have been all good with those 'outraged' deplorables if she had simply added "and I assume some are good people", right? But it is comical that HRC got railed for making this one insulting comment, when someone else was regularly and un-apologetically letting all sorts of noxious sounds come out...

Well, she did say it was only something like half of Trump supporters. So, presumably, some of the other half could be good people.

 

[IanSYK]

My first exposure to George W. Bush was him saying in a debate (emphasis mine):

"It's a school full of so-called at risk children. It's how we, unfortunately, label certain children. It means basically they can't learn."

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it was a stupid thing to say. I guess it would have been all good with those 'outraged' deplorables if she had simply added "and I assume some are good people", right? But it is comical that HRC got railed for making this one insulting comment, when someone else was regularly and un-apologetically letting all sorts of noxious sounds come out...

Well, she did say it was only something like half of Trump supporters. So, presumably, some of the other half could be good people.

In the same speech she said

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.

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 heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...n-s-full-remarks-as-1473549076-htmlstory.html

 

[Shadowy Man]

In the same speech she said

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.

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 heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...n-s-full-remarks-as-1473549076-htmlstory.html

We keep being told that she didn't reach out to those people, so she couldn't have said this. Or even if she did say this there must not have been anything in her policies that would have helped these people.

Or maybe it was just that what you quoted is too long and nuanced compared to "make america great again". Nothing beats a nifty slogan!!

 

[blastula]

The difference is that HRC apologized for the remark the very next day. Trumpster hasn't never apologized for anything that I know of in his life.

The statement itself was politically stupid because it attacked the voters rather than her competitor. But yes, Clinton apologized for it but then only distanced herself from the word "deplorable", while continuing to call anyone who didn't support her campaign racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc.

What's your excuse for this false statement?

 

[KeepTalking]

Is the term "basket of deplorables" the most in-artful term you ever heard coined in a presidential campaign? Forget being a running candidate that paint millions of voters with the name deplorable, but just the phrase itself. WTF is that? and months of hearing it hasn't made it sound any better to me.

It is certainly not the most artful term ever used by a presidential candidate, so I almost agreed with you. Then I remembered that Donald Trump was also once a presidential candidate, and every single thing that came out of his mouth during that campaign was less artful than this.

 

[Malintent]

Now I'm thinking up my own in-artful phrases for Trump supporters. How about "jar of despicables"? "cupboard of nasties"?

"urn of bigots"
"box of terribles"
"bowl of dreadfuls"
"suitably large container of maggots on the putrid underbelly of America"

I've just been using, "bunch of fucking idiots"

 

[skepticalbip]

Now I'm thinking up my own in-artful phrases for Trump supporters. How about "jar of despicables"? "cupboard of nasties"?

"urn of bigots"
"box of terribles"
"bowl of dreadfuls"
"suitably large container of maggots on the putrid underbelly of America"

I've just been using, "bunch of fucking idiots"

ON both sides... there was no decent candidate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've just been using, "bunch of fucking idiots"

ON both sides... there was no decent candidate.

It was a competition to who is the most unpopular.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yet this worked perfectly fine with Trump. He insulted a great many people and still won. Obviously insulting a great many of the voting population is not a deterrent to winning.

If you want to win those who as swaying to your side then using terms like the 'basket' are not likely to endear you to them. If you wish to appear better than your opponent then you must do better. Taking your self to your opponent's level is guaranteed to lose. They will always beat you with experience.

Except you're not proving your point. Trump won by sinking the lowest level. Obviously that is a winning strategy.

 

[dismal]

If you want to win those who as swaying to your side then using terms like the 'basket' are not likely to endear you to them. If you wish to appear better than your opponent then you must do better. Taking your self to your opponent's level is guaranteed to lose. They will always beat you with experience.

Except you're not proving your point. Trump won by sinking the lowest level. Obviously that is a winning strategy.

I thought Trump won because he/his supporters didn't feel a compulsive need to describe a large chunk of the electorate as racist, stupid or otherwise deplorable.

 

[laughing dog]

Except you're not proving your point. Trump won by sinking the lowest level. Obviously that is a winning strategy.

I thought Trump won because he/his supporters didn't feel a compulsive need to describe a large chunk of the electorate as racist, stupid or otherwise deplorable.

That's true. Neither Trump nor his supporters felt a compulsive need to acknowledge reality.

 

[Warpoet]

ON both sides... there was no decent candidate.

Let's just stop with these false equivalences, shall we? Trump was the worst candidate in history, by a country mile. His election represents an unprecedented danger to the entire world, and everyone who voted for him will have to answer for that.

 

[Warpoet]

I thought Trump won because he/his supporters didn't feel a compulsive need to describe a large chunk of the electorate as racist, stupid or otherwise deplorable.

There was no one reason why people supported him, but there was a common thread amongst them all: generalized indifference toward his glaring lack of any sort of qualifications, and total disregard for the truth, not to mention decency.

 

[skepticalbip]

ON both sides... there was no decent candidate.

Let's just stop with these false equivocations, shall we? Trump was the worst candidate in history, by a country mile. His election represents an unprecedented danger to the entire world, and everyone who voted for him will have to answer for that.

:laughing-smiley-014

Both of those fucking candidates were atrocious. I find it amazing how both of them had brain dead followers who could see no faults in their chosen demagogue and actually praised them. Propaganda and demization proved to be damned effective for both.

 

[Warpoet]

Both of those fucking candidates were atrocious.

That's what you want to believe, but it's not what the record shows. Of course, it's easy to set the bar low enough that all politicians are "atrocious." But Trump was worse by every rational metric, whether you and others towing your particular line own up to it or not. And the next four years will bear out beyond any point of debate.

I find it amazing how both of them had brain dead followers who could see no faults in their chosen demagogue. Propaganda and demonetization proved to be damned effective for both.

Demonstration of a lack of any meaningful understanding of the issues whatsoever, unrepentant bigotry and bold-faced lying only worked for one of them. But go on, keep spinning this delusional narrative that they were both just as bad.

 

[skepticalbip]

Damned dude.... That campaign propaganda really did a number on you.

 

[Warpoet]

Obviously that's the problem here. Couldn't possibly be that I'm looking at an immensely important issue rationally, whereas you're just engaging in lazy, self-serving reasoning to avoid having to actually think too hard about it, right?

 

[skepticalbip]

I hear the same shit from the dedicated followers on both extremes.. and with the same "justification".

 

[Arctish]

When people say both candidates were just as bad, the question I keep thinking is "Just as bad at what?"

Were they both just as bad at understanding and addressing domestic policy issues, working with members of Congress, formulating a coherent, forward-looking foreign policy, making wise decisions wrt staff and government appointees, and all the other things a President is expected to do at least competently if not extremely well?

Or were they both just as bad at winning a particular person's vote?

I think the former is heavily implied but in reality it's the latter. They were both just as bad at appealing to individual voters.