(11-09-2016 05:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.

She meant for the word "deplorable" to stick. She used "half" to give herself deniability ("I didn't say all, I just said half"). She does not know, nor does she give a damn, what the actual number is, if there are any.

Quote:Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

Hillary was clearly tying to imply guilt by association. That's not only unfair, but it ended up costing her, because it galvanized opposition. In that sense, I suppose it was fair, she got the result that she deserved.

So you really hate when the left uses dog whistles but not the right, huh?

Clinton shouldn't have said what she did - both sides have a lot of people supporting them who are less than good, and dare I say deplorable. You stretching what HRC said and drawing conclusions you think are obvious. However, when someone tried to do that the other day with Trump, it was a non-starter.