My news feed is filled with people moaning that their tender fee-fees were hurt beyond belief by the word “deplorable.”
Maybe they should have been offered a trigger warning and a safe space to protect them from the scary, traumatizing word.
Traumatized by Deplorable
Clarissa's Blog 
Career politicians have a very low opinion of most voters. What else is new?
What’s especially funny are those who are trying to say that Clinton’s gaffe isnt as bad as Romney’s 47 %….
LikeLike
Chimpanzees in zoos look down at some of the Trump supporters, which Hillary addressed in an earlier draft of her speech:
LikeLike
The richness of vocabulary would have hurt their feelings even more. Poor darlings are already traumatized by the fact that the word “deplorable” has more than 2 syllables.
LikeLike
See…this is why I could never be a career politician. My ability to pretend that white supremacists and white supremacist adjacent people are fine misunderstood salt of the earth types is virtually non existent.
This doesn’t include fancy acting to get out of a situation though.
LikeLike
They made a movement out of insulting everybody in sight and now are whining that the word “deplorable” hurt their feelings. Pathetic.
LikeLike
Is this Clinton walking back a statement or this shade?
“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” Clinton said in a statement in which she also vowed to call out “bigotry” in Trump’s campaign.
LikeLike
“What’s especially funny are those who are trying to say that Clinton’s gaffe isnt as bad as Romney’s 47 %….”
What’s funnier is how desperately you want this to be true.
LikeLike
It’s not like the deplorables were going to vote for Clinton anyway.
Hey, finally a politician is honest and again people are unhappy.
LikeLike
What I want to know is who are the “deplorable” adjacent people or the fence sitters who would’ve voted for Clinton but are now going to stay home, vote 3rd party or vote for Trump.
How large is that group, really?
LikeLike
And does it even exist?
LikeLike
Whatever you think about Trump supporters in the abstract, insulting large groups of voters has never been a winning tactice for any politician.
I’m assuming that she forgot who she was talking to and didn’t change her pitch from when she’s talking to rich donors and not hoi polloi….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The importance of the 47% comment for Romney’s campaign was always exaggerated, in my opinion. I always said he had no chance of winning. He had zero charisma.
LikeLike
“Romney’s campaign was always exaggerated, in my opinion. I always said he had no chance of winning. He had zero charisma.”
I thought the reactions to “binders of women” were exaggerated too. Romney’s biggest problem wasn’t his lack of charisma (it’s not necessary for a president oddly enough) but being too obviously a political whore by pandering to the republican’s retarded platform at the time.
I’m hoping Trump is not elected but if he can gut the republicans of its evangelical base then he will have performed a noble service. Just sparing the country ¡Jeb! or Cruz as nominee is refreshing and delightful (though the thought of him as president is….. worrying).
The neocons (typically wrong about everything) seem to have migrated to the democrats and Clinton seems like one now which is a shame.
LikeLike
Whatever you think about Trump supporters in the abstract, insulting large groups of voters has never been a winning tactice for any politician.
That’s very true as far as it goes.
Trump has shoveled volleys of non-stop insults at large groups of voters since he started running for President and really before he started running. Half of the news cycles are about his verbal and Twitter logorrhea. In this context, it’s just funny to me that “deplorable” is just this gigantic gaffe that people clutch their pearls over.
Musical break:
I’m a good, such a good, real good person
I’m a good person through and through
I’m a good, such a good, real good person
Lemme hear you say it too
Say it. Say it! Or I’ll kill your husband
I’ll do it! I’ll gut him like a fish
You’re a good person
Aw, thank you
LikeLike
“Whatever you think about Trump supporters in the abstract, insulting large groups of voters has never been a winning tactice for any politician.”
This still doesn’t make much sense, and here’s why.
A lot of people aren’t especially offended by government aid. Government aid isn’t a moral failure. So when Romney made the 47% remark he was attacking people who need help, which didn’t help his image of being an out of touch let-them-eat-cake republican. This cost him votes.
What do we have with Clinton? She’s attacking racists, homophobes, anti-semites, misogynists. Those things are moral failures (and people who subscribe to them are already voting for Trump).
Your argument seems to be that because of this gaffe, an innocent bystander who didn’t care to vote will now galvanize into action to protect the stolen honor of …people who photoshop journalists’ photos in Nazi ovens.
Umm, OK.
Who is this mythical currently inactive voter who’s like, wait a second, I may not be a racist bigot, but I will NOT sit by idly while their dignity is under attack. How does that work?
Because, I can totally imagine a moderate republican in 2012 thinking, look, I don’t like government aid but why beat on people who already have it so much worse in life?
You’ve got to stop reading Breitbart, dude. You’re too smart for that, and I mean this sincerely.
LikeLike
“You’ve got to stop reading Breitbart, dude. You’re too smart for that, and I mean this sincerely.”
I haven’t read a BB article in weeks because it tends to send my browser into fits (and only have very occasionally looked at it).
My position is that this election is not about right and left. Hillary is still stuck there and if she loses it will be because she hasn’t grasped what’s driving this election cycle yet. Thinking of Trump voters in terms of left and right isn’t productive or helpful.
This election is the beginning of a realignment period in American politics (a similar realignment is going on in Eruope but rather different in nature).
The last time of realignment was most of the 70’s (esp 76 to 80 beginning with Reagan losing the republican nomination). By 1980 the realignment was complete and has lasted with only minor blips until this year. It was basically neoliberal economics, social conservative values on one side and everybody else on the other.
The realignment is going to be around the localist/globalist axis and just exactly who’s on which side isn’t clear yet. Both sides will probably have more left and right elements but the primary distinction will be between people with some idea of loyalty towards local populations and those with no loyalty to them.
Look at the election in those terms. Local/nationalist vs globalist and it makes much more sense.
LikeLike
“Look at the election in those terms. Local/nationalist vs globalist and it makes much more sense.”
That is beside the point. We were talking about the Clinton gaffe and how it related to Romney’s 47% comment (hint: not related).
I absolutely refuse to believe that the guy posting holocaust photoshops on Twitter is doing so because of the perils of economic globalization. A lot of Trump’s supporters are well-off, too. Plus, if one was concerned about the globalization, they would already have a candidate to support: Sanders.
Wonder why they chose a racist, misogynist, incompetent idiot instead.
LikeLike
My position is that this election is not about right and left. Hillary is still stuck there and if she loses it will be because she hasn’t grasped what’s driving this election cycle yet. Thinking of Trump voters in terms of left and right isn’t productive or helpful.
How is it helpful to think about it in terms of nationalist/globalist?
She could start offering tariffs tomorrow and it won’t move these Trump voters who are so concerned about trade. I don’t see a lot of beaters with Trump stickers around town, but a lot of shiny new late model vehicles. The dude’s a nationalist like the Pope is Buddhist. It’s a weird disconnect to be for a wall to keep out scary Mexicans but not to worry about Russia hacking US servers, if you’re concerned about borders, national security and the financial well being of of citizens (are people really stupid enough to think such hackers will just confine themselves to their political opponents)? It’s garbled nonsense to worship Reagan and freak out about “communism” and “socialism” but not freak out about that.
What national unity?
LikeLike
“She could start offering tariffs tomorrow and it won’t move these Trump voters who are so concerned about trade.”
Remember when Obama showed his birth certificate and that seemed to satisfy them? And the nation was united once and for all?
LikeLike
To Shakti and Stringer: There’s obviously a bunch of Trumpers that Hills will never win over, she’s right not to concentrate on them.
But… Bernie Sanders (another incarnation of the localist/nationalist viewpoint) was outpolling Trump while Clinton is… not. She needs the Sanders voters that she’s lost badly and she has no idea how to get them on board besides rattling off a lot of boilerplate that doens’t connect to them at all.
I’ve long said that once HC gets the nomination she needs to show some nationalist bonafides if she wants to win. She hasn’t and she isn’t.
If she loses it will be because she didn’t spend enough time convincing American citizens that she cares about them more than everybody else on the planet.
LikeLike
“She needs the Sanders voters that she’s lost badly”
Citation needed. All polls showing sanders primary supporters voting for Clinton in november. Like 90% levels.
Yeah, that’s some wishcasting there. Trump taking Sanders’ supporters. lol.
Look, I don’t care for a lot of what Clinton represents. If she loses it’ll be because she failed to secure her base (let’s face it, the other side is never ever going to vote for her. We’re talking 25 years of pure misogyny here).
LikeLike
I am convinced that Hillary made the deplorable baskets statement precisely to re-energize her base. This is what the base has been dying to hear. People are wondering why nobody is saying what needs to be said, why we are all pretending that these Trump voters are the tragically dispossessed.
I was in another wealthy residential area yesterday where the houses are definitely outside my reach. And I saw several Trump signs in there.
LikeLike
“their tender fee-fees”
Was this wording on purpose?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fee%20fee
LikeLike
I had no idea. 😊 You live, you learn.
LikeLike
It is the urban dictionary, after all, and not the OED. I’ve only seen the term used in the context you used it. Google confirms it, too.
LikeLike
” I’ve only seen the term used in the context you used it.”
What’s it supposed to mean in Clarissa’s post?
LikeLike
‘fee-fees’ comes from baby-talk, I think. The emotional equivalent of a ‘boo-boo’. Hurt feelings, etc.
LikeLike
“The dude’s a nationalist like the Pope is Buddhist.”
Also, on record bragging that his building was now the tallest in Manhattan, hours after the towers fell. Trump The Nationalist.
https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/718233510176288768
LikeLike
“The dude’s a nationalist like the Pope is Buddhist”
I’m talking about what his followers want, not about what he wants (or could or would) do in office.
LikeLike