(08-15-2017 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

Because apparently two wrongs cancel each other out.

If Trump had been a normal president who can use his words to express complex thoughts, he could have actually touched on the issues presented by the Antifa present (using force to try and quell the free speech of others) and not sounded like he was minimizing the dangers posed by violent neo-Nazis.

Instead, he was Trump and didn't do that.

Actually the statement is that things are really f'ed up. On both sides. Or haven't you noticed?

I in no way want Charlottesville as the new norm, nor do I want norms like Oakland 2009, Akron 2009, Pittsburgh 2009, Santa Cruz 2010, Oakland 2010, Los Angeles 2010, Oakland 2011, Chicago 2012, Anaheim 2012, Brooklyn 2013, Ferguson 2014, New York City 2014, Baltimore 2015, Anaheim 2016, Chicago 2016, San Jose 2016, St Paul 2016, Milwaukee 2016, Charlotte 2016, Standing Rock 2016, Oakland 2016, Portland 2016, Washington DC 2017, Berkeley 2017, Anaheim 2017, Berkeley (again) 2017, Berkeley (again again) 2017, Olympia 2017, and Portland 2017.

Not to mention the fing mass shooting of US Congressmen.

There are deep fing problems and issues on both sides related to this. It is not a vacuum.

But damnit!!! *The* (one, only, and MAJOR) problem is Trump not specifying neo-nazis and KKKers by name..... I am POSITIVE that step will solve *everything* and the world will be overrun by cute leprechauns and multi-colored my little ponies when *that* happens.... in a timely fashion, of course.....

(08-15-2017 12:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I doubt that anything that PDT will ever do, say, or stand for will ever get a vote of "passable job" (let alone "good job") from certain people.

I believe that Trump’s original official statement was exactly what it was: denouncing hatred, intolerance, and violence. But PDT's statement didn't pretend that it only takes place solely and exclusively among the Klan and the Nazis.

It was silly to do a follow-up on Monday to satisfy the press because *nothing* he could have said at any point would have satisfied the people who have sure that he’s is Satan's representative on Earth.

But since I interestingly believe that two groups showed up to rumble on Saturday, I guess this is just another "rant", eh?

Really, straightforwardly condemning a group of neo-Nazis who murdered an innocent woman should be a no-brainer, my mind boggles that you don't get this.

I don't think a 'group' murdered an innocent woman.

And before you start in on the implied ad homs, perhaps you need to adjust your inherently broad brush.

And before you take my previous statement as 'supporting Nazis' and run with it (as you will be probably be itching to do), I suggest you actually read what I have written previously.

But, alas, I am probably not as artful as expressing complex issues as some here want everyone to be, so I am positive that anything coming out of this discussion will probably be awesome fodder what a fing deplorable I am.

As for hyperbole and inexactness and not paying attention to the complexities of speech, I suggest you turn an experienced eye towards your own "a group of Neo-nazis who murdered an innocent woman" statement and examine *that* for the inexactness, inartfullness, and calling a hyperbolic statement a 'lie' that seems to be the de rigueur for your own examination of Trump statements, actions, inactions, and non-statements.

Or for that matter, perhaps you should actually respond to your other broad brush characterization claiming that I thought that the 'only people protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists were antifa activists'. You know, the one that you passed on previously before making your own next broad brush inaccurate statement and getting horribly offended (to the scope that your mind is boggled) by any of my sure to be offending next statements (or non-statements, as the case may be)

Today's press conference was astonishing. That the president thinks it's worth the power of his pulpit to defend people participating in this demonstration as "very fine people" -- a demonstration organized by a white nationalist, and kicked off with an evening pep rally complete with torches and broadly voiced chants denigrating Jews -- is really shameful to me. Maybe there were a few fair-minded people in that demonstration who didn't pay attention to what they were getting into, and for whatever reason didn't have the wherewithal to get the hell outta dodge when they saw the swastikas and heard the hate. But those people don't deserve, and probably don't want, to be defended for their mistake --my guess is they'd much rather their presence go unnoticed.

I've been disappointed and disgusted by things the things that the president has said through his campaign and his presidency. This Democrat has spent the last seven months longing for the days of the George W. Bush presidency more than I ever imagined possible. But I've felt all along that this president was more unscrupulous salesman than bad-hearted person; more amoral than immoral. Today I'm coming to grips with the realization that I've been wrong. It's much worse than I thought.

I'm watching more of the conference right now. He's defending people who quietly protested *at the nighttime rally*. I'm sorry. If you're not a racist, and you're just there because you don't want a Confederate statue to be taken down, you don't silently and respectfully walk among white supremacists ranting at a torchlit march. You open your eyes and ears, realize this is not what you signed up for, and head to your car as quickly and inconspicuously as you can. And you come back another weekend to make your point, when your fellow protesters are decent Americans.

For the record I do think it was wrong for any counterprotesters to come to the event with the intent of inciting violence. But at this point that part is kind of moot.

(08-15-2017 10:15 PM)erice Wrote:  I'm watching more of the conference right now. He's defending people who quietly protested *at the nighttime rally*.

The "nighttime rally" on Friday was illegal, not under the proper permit, organized on the QT through twitter, facebook et al, and ended with an additionally illegal "march" from a sports field on the UVa campus to the Jefferson statue in front of the Rotunda. The "alt-left" (what a joke!) students who encircled the statue were on campus legally and were protecting their university. The right-wingers were carrying lit tiki torches which they could, and did, use as weapons. So when the DT says he waited to speak until he "had all the facts," looks like he missed, or flat out ignored, a bunch of the more important ones. Oops!

And just to be clear, the intent of the organization of individuals in Charlottesvile was to promote white supremecy. From the Unite the Right's leader's own mouth:

Quote:"We're trying to do a pro-white demonstration," Kessler said. "We're trying to show that folks can stand up for white people. The political correctness has gotten way out of control, and the only way to fight back against it has been to stand up for our own interests."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busines...lle-2017-8

That's why the broad brush actually isn't awful on this situation.

Trump decides to dissolve his two business councils, mainly because all the CEOs quit.

One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Along the same lines, I feel like Rubicon has definitely been crossed. I'm just not sure by whom. Certainly Trump. But just Trump? The GOP? Our country as a whole? I really don't see how Trump can come back from this. Who is he going to take down with him?

Good point on the "deplorables" though I've always thought that was very much a case of people whose identity is tied up in resentment looking for an insult. The second half of that section of her speech was:

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- 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. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. 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 heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Now people might still find that patronising instead of empathetic, but she's clearly saying this is a different basket from the "deplorables".

So are the people claiming "deplorable" as a point of honor saying that they are " racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"? And if they are, well hell, they are deplorable. And if they are not, why are they intentionally misinterpreting the speech?

"We talk a lot of ****."

And Albert Speer said the Third Reich was "all just an opera."

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.

Preferring a (flawed) Trump to a (flawed) Clinton, or even simply declining to support Clinton (which in the ideologue's mind is equivalent to supporting Trump), does not merit a 1 in 2 chance of being deemed a fellow traveler with white supremacists et al.

Your question itself seems to illustrate the problem. Nobody worth caring about objects to the calling out of *actual* white supremacists, etc. in the harshest possible terms. By all means call *them* deplorable, evil, whatever. But your question implies that is not enough. Why else would one be reaching for language with which to associate others with white supremacists? So do tell. What else should land someone in that basket alongside the Klan member and the neo-Nazi?

And therein lies the issue, because as far as I can see, the impulse to define anything other than standard Democratic orthodoxy as "hate" (or in the case of wanting to retool the health insurance system, "murder") has been given into, full force. And how that changes back to a more civil belief that the vast, vast majority of people on the other side of the fence on quotidian issues such as tax policy, health insurance, government spending, etc. -- and even social issues like abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc. -- are nevertheless people of good will, I have no idea.

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.
How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.
Preferring a (flawed) Trump to a (flawed) Clinton, or even simply declining to support Clinton (which in the ideologue's mind is equivalent to supporting Trump), does not merit a 1 in 2 chance of being deemed a fellow traveler with white supremacists et al.

Your question itself seems to illustrate the problem. Nobody worth caring about objects to the calling out of *actual* white supremacists, etc. in the harshest possible terms. By all means call *them* deplorable, evil, whatever. But your question implies that is not enough. Why else would one be reaching for language with which to associate others with white supremacists? So do tell. What else should land someone in that basket alongside the Klan member and the neo-Nazi?
And therein lies the issue, because as far as I can see, the impulse to define anything other than standard Democratic orthodoxy as "hate" (or in the case of wanting to retool the health insurance system, "murder") has been given into, full force. And how that changes back to a more civil belief that the vast, vast majority of people on the other side of the fence on quotidian issues such as tax policy, health insurance, government spending, etc. -- and even social issues like abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc. -- are nevertheless people of good will, I have no idea.

Exactly.

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing I've been thinking about after Charlottesville and the proclaimed support of Trump by white supremacist leaders and followers. Do these guys not fit into that basket of deplorables Clinton talked about? They obviously do, but that comment was a hard one to stomach for a lot of people who did not fall into that basket, but felt like she was lumping them in there with them.

How do we, going forward, call out those so called deplorables without eliciting the same response? Or are we just going to be stuck biting our tongues?

Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.

Preferring a (flawed) Trump to a (flawed) Clinton, or even simply declining to support Clinton (which in the ideologue's mind is equivalent to supporting Trump), does not merit a 1 in 2 chance of being deemed a fellow traveler with white supremacists et al.

Your question itself seems to illustrate the problem. Nobody worth caring about objects to the calling out of *actual* white supremacists, etc. in the harshest possible terms. By all means call *them* deplorable, evil, whatever. But your question implies that is not enough. Why else would one be reaching for language with which to associate others with white supremacists? So do tell. What else should land someone in that basket alongside the Klan member and the neo-Nazi?

And therein lies the issue, because as far as I can see, the impulse to define anything other than standard Democratic orthodoxy as "hate" (or in the case of wanting to retool the health insurance system, "murder") has been given into, full force. And how that changes back to a more civil belief that the vast, vast majority of people on the other side of the fence on quotidian issues such as tax policy, health insurance, government spending, etc. -- and even social issues like abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc. -- are nevertheless people of good will, I have no idea.

So going forward it's just making sure to not over-exaggerate the amount of people who fall into that definition?

I had not remembered there being a severe push back on the percentage of people placed into the basket, but the basket itself. If that had been the case, if the general argument against Clinton's use of the word deplorable is that she had reach too far in her percentage, then I wouldn't have asked the question. I remember getting more pushback about the fact that she did use the term and people felt as if she was projecting on them.

Therefore, if it was just about the %, what % would have not drawn such a response? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%?

edit: and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

But they also have just the same percentage chance as being called a good person? So aren't they just looking to be offended?

And that goes to my comment about how that line is phony. Clinton explicitly stated that 50% of Trump supporters were good people who had real concerns about economics, policy, etc. Therefore, that means that those people, who obviously aren't leaning democratic, are not hateful.

What % of Trump supporters would have been an appropriate amount to present for you to not feel the way you do?

(08-17-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

But they also have just the same percentage chance as being called a good person? So aren't they just looking to be offended?

And that goes to my comment about how that line is phony. Clinton explicitly stated that 50% of Trump supporters were good people who had real concerns about economics, policy, etc. Therefore, that means that those people, who obviously aren't leaning democratic, are not hateful.

What % of Trump supporters would have been an appropriate amount to present for you to not feel the way you do?

No, you tell me. 60 million people voted for Trump. You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country? So 1 in 4 voters? How about we start here: Was she off by a little or a lot? And in which direction?

(08-17-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Simple - don't say that *half* of Trump's support comes from that basket. Which is what she said, verbatim.

Actually, what she said, verbatim, was "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,"

If the proportion ("half") that she stated is the part you're quibbling with... Is it really fair to quibble with it when she introduced the proportion by proclaiming the statement she was about to make was "grossly generalistic?"

Nevertheless, it was kind of mean-spirited, so maybe it's fair to quibble with it. But the very next day she apologized, saying "Last night I was 'grossly generalistic,' and that's never a good idea. I regret saying 'half' -- that was wrong,"

Does anyone actually think our president would so explicitly apologize for an over-generalization he'd made, even if it's provably an over-generalization? Ever? If so, what planet are you on? Comparisons between president Trump's behavior and specific incidents involving other politicians are frustrating because with Trump, the behavior is always so chronic and unrepentant.

(And I'm not being grossly generalistic).

I'm not sure why Hillary Clinton is relevant to any of this at this point. Whether people voted for Trump because they supported him, or because they thought he wouldn't be as bad as Clinton, is kind of irrelevant now. He won. And we've learned more about him since inauguration. Particularly in the last week. Does anyone support him as leader of our nation now? If so, how can you support someone who thinks you can march shoulder to shoulder with a group of people, most of whom are carrying torches and shouting anti-semitic slogans, and still be a "fine person"? If not, why are you defending him? (the "you" here is not directed at illiniowl, whom I quoted at the beginning.)

(08-17-2017 03:24 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and obviously your statement that anything but democratic philosophy = hate is a phony projection. If anything, Clinton indicated that 50% of people weren't deplorables, and, ergo, at least 50% of Trump supporters were people of good will.

Based on what I've seen posted since Charlottesville, if not before, I wouldn't say that is phony at all. Since Obama entered the white house, the standard response to disagreement with democrats has been to cry "racist." I've said for years that one good thing about Internet arguments is that you know you've won when they have nothing left but to call you racist.

Quote:Somehow, though, no one who was offended by this comment felt they were being put into that category...

When the allegation is 50%, then anyone who was offended has a right to feel that there was a pretty decent chance (like 50-50) that the comment was directed at them.

But they also have just the same percentage chance as being called a good person? So aren't they just looking to be offended?

And that goes to my comment about how that line is phony. Clinton explicitly stated that 50% of Trump supporters were good people who had real concerns about economics, policy, etc. Therefore, that means that those people, who obviously aren't leaning democratic, are not hateful.

What % of Trump supporters would have been an appropriate amount to present for you to not feel the way you do?

No, you tell me. 60 million people voted for Trump. You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country? So 1 in 4 voters? How about we start here: Was she off by a little or a lot? And in which direction?

This is kind of my point. As was pointed out by another poster, even at the time she said she was grossly generalizing. So for people to get so up in arms about the % that she applied to that statement missed the point of her comment, which was that Trump had a lot of vocal support by deplorable people and he was feeding them what they craved.

And Charlottesville has cemented the fact that a percentage of the those who supported and voted for Trump are truly deplorable people, and Trump did, and continues to, feed them.

The percentage of those who voted for Trump that fall in that category doesn't matter - it's the fact that he is in bed with them that does. Yet somehow, because an incorrect % was applied by Clinton (that percent, if actually calculated, should be much lower), the conversation was never about the fact that Trump actively courted those individuals as it should have been, but that people who supported Trump and weren't those individuals, were offended that perhaps some people thought that maybe they were the deplorables.

(08-17-2017 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is kind of my point. As was pointed out by another poster, even at the time she said she was grossly generalizing. So for people to get so up in arms about the % that she applied to that statement missed the point of her comment, which was that Trump had a lot of vocal support by deplorable people and he was feeding them what they craved.
And Charlottesville has cemented the fact that a percentage of the those who supported and voted for Trump are truly deplorable people, and Trump did, and continues to, feed them.
The percentage of those who voted for Trump that fall in that category doesn't matter - it's the fact that he is in bed with them that does. Yet somehow, because an incorrect % was applied by Clinton (that percent, if actually calculated, should be much lower), the conversation was never about the fact that Trump actively courted those individuals as it should have been, but that people who supported Trump and weren't those individuals, were offended that perhaps some people thought that maybe they were the deplorables.

And this is precisely the sort of rationalization that cost Hillary the white house.

(08-17-2017 03:24 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  No, you tell me. 60 million people voted for Trump. You think there are 30 million racist, evil bigots in this country? So 1 in 4 voters? How about we start here: Was she off by a little or a lot? And in which direction?

I'll bite.

I honestly don't know.

In the general, I think a lot of Republicans fell into line and held their nose and voted for Trump even thought they had strongly opposed him in the primaries. I go back and forth on this. These people may very well have been offended by the Hollywood Access tape, his attacks on a Gold Star family because of their religion/ethnicity, his mocking of a disabled reporter, his retweeting of white supremacists, his attacks on the "mexican" judge from Indiana, etc. But they voted for him anyway. So I do have to question their values. But I've voted for candidates who I have a middling opinion of as people because they were the option that supported policies I support. For me Trump would have crossed way, way too many lines for me to even consider it if I had been presented with that dilemma. But I wasn't. Further complicating things is the fact that everyone assumed he was going to lose. I have to wonder how the election would have turned out if it was being reported as too close to call. I suspect a lot of reluctant Trump voters might have left that one blank or cast a protest vote.

Now people who supported him in the primary? I have a much harder time giving them a pass. And the initial research backs me up on that. Trump primary voters were much more likely to be racist, sexist, or authoritarian than non-Trump Republican primary voters, who it turns out were not that different from the public as a whole on those issues. Indeed I think that is a key to his hardcore base.

So I'm going to wait and let the political scientists figure this one out. Because they are never wrong and always agree.

(08-17-2017 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is kind of my point. As was pointed out by another poster, even at the time she said she was grossly generalizing. So for people to get so up in arms about the % that she applied to that statement missed the point of her comment, which was that Trump had a lot of vocal support by deplorable people and he was feeding them what they craved.
And Charlottesville has cemented the fact that a percentage of the those who supported and voted for Trump are truly deplorable people, and Trump did, and continues to, feed them.
The percentage of those who voted for Trump that fall in that category doesn't matter - it's the fact that he is in bed with them that does. Yet somehow, because an incorrect % was applied by Clinton (that percent, if actually calculated, should be much lower), the conversation was never about the fact that Trump actively courted those individuals as it should have been, but that people who supported Trump and weren't those individuals, were offended that perhaps some people thought that maybe they were the deplorables.

And this is precisely the sort of rationalization that cost Hillary the white house.

So you're saying that the actual percentage of these deplorable people matters that much? Why?

Or are you saying that calling any of Trump's supporters deplorable is what matters?