General News Hillary Clinton says 50% of Trump supporters are "deplorables"

I'm confused as to how it poses a problem for her. If you're on the fence between Trump or Clinton, you've obviously got other issues going on. There is absolutely no way to be in between the two - it makes no logical sense! Clinton and then a third party candidate? Trump & some mummy with a dead squirrel on their head? Similar connection.

Trump consistently bashes Clinton and his supporters consistently bash liberals (if I see "libtards" one more time, I think I'll scream).

 

She should've called them rapists then say maybe some of them are good people. I'm indifferent to what she say but don't think it's out of line either. I wish she had the courage to say all. Not like we pay great detail to their policies anyways its just focus on mudslinging. It's like a reality show.


I think super delegates favor her by a good lead anyways I'm not gonna be worried yet. If anything maybe a Trump win would be a good thing to shake us up.

 

Honesty people are just people, no need to bad mouth the supporters of any party. Let them support who ever they want,
Just like I can love who I want,
Just like I can be who I am,
It's a part of Life.

 

Considering I live around those types on a daily basis, I can confirm they are quite plentiful, I assume due to frequent reproduction and forceful child indoctrination.

This is a fact the US doesn't want to hear however, it's like telling them we need effective gun control, enforced separation of church and state, or more abortion clinics. Hopefully they don't grow more vehement and put Mr. Megalomaniac in charge of the nukes. Hopefully....

 

haha I like this idea because it's like a parody of Trump and no one could say anything about her without also making themselves a complete hypocrite for not calling out Trump. She could've said worse than what she did while still being honest.

The truth is a lot of Trump's followers are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic garbage cans. Some of them are basically klan members.

 

...What?

 

That's true. Hillary has some of those supporters too I'm sure but to act like Trump's aren't more prevalent is silly. Even if she said "all" it still wouldn't be as offensive as saying Mexico is sending their worse or a Muslim ban.

The funniest part is most of Trump's diehard fans who claim to fight for freedom of speech wanna censor differing views the most. Even Trump is a thin-skinned whiner. TBF, I wish both Hillary and Trump fans would accept differing views much better than they do.

Yep. Correct me if I'm wrong but she has 2814 while Trump has 1543. If her email scandal and the DNC favoring her couldn't topple her nothing will. I actually think her being vile and nasty towards Trump will get her more votes but that's my opinion. It fits her temperament more anyways she's far from a kind person.

---------- Post added 12th Sep 2016 at 06:59 AM ----------

But imagine her saying, "Trump supporters are inbreeds, hillbillies, racists, homophobes.....okay may a few are good". Oh man I'd love Hillary for those few seconds she should've done it.

 

I'm so lost.

 

It's probably referring to the electoral college numbers. (they're not super delegates, that's the term for the nomination process) In the US the popular vote does not directly elect the President/Vice President. You win the popular vote in a particular state, you get that states electoral votes. The winner of the electoral votes wins. All any democratic candidate really needs to do is win the traditional democratic states, NOT the popular vote overall. Usually when there is a difference between the electoral votes and the popular votes, it's a small one. If you had a situation however where the difference is significant, it could potentially be a problem after the election getting people behind the new president. It would mean a few states would basically get to decide the presidency. Also with 3rd party candidates, you could have a situation where they get 1/3 the popular vote, but no electoral college votes.

---------- Post added 12th Sep 2016 at 10:03 AM ----------

Unfortunately as of right now both of the 3rd party contenders are like they always have been, irrelevant. This might change however after the debates, because I've heard that at least one of them or possibly both might actually be there. If people could actually hear the difference between them and Clinton or Trump, they might actually get enough support to get campaign money to run ads, get votes etc.

Some people say that no matter how many votes they get they can't win, which isn't technically true. There is a hypothetical situation that could legally allow for it, and the right elements are there this year to potentially make it happen.

 

I totally agree with the first two sentences. What she said doesn't bother me at all, and is true to some percentage. I totally disagree with the third sentence however.

 

I couldn't have stated it better thank you. Now that lead could change between now and November but as of now she has more delegate votes for her. Sorry didn't mean super delegates but bing shows the same results whether you put in "super" or not.

Third party could at least get in debates especially with the D & R top candidates being so nationally despised. I'm just tired of people being so mad just because I refuse to align with someone so apart from me politically. How can I get my voice heard if I don't try to support who I align with? Makes me consider not even voting because we're stuck in a two-party dilemma that has been that way for hundreds of years but I'm the crazy one for realizing that.

 

I don't think any Trump supporter would vote for her anyways, Just saying.

 

People, purple wolf, you're getting the primary mixed with the general....

 

You may be right. Now I'm confused lol.

 

The only mistake she made when she said that is that it's way more than half.

Also, she's spineless for retracting her statement. It's true, and everyone knows it.

I can't wait for November elections, gonna be exciting (and scary)....

 

Trump came out with '[t]he disdain that Hillary Clinton expressed toward millions of decent Americans disqualifies her from public service.'

I think we ought to keep ourselves aware of his revolting statements about women, his foul accusations against Judge Curiel and his own history of turfing out the poor and desperate from their homes in order to make money, before we can take seriously his claims that Clinton unjustifiably disdains millions of Americans.

 

A true Trump supporter wouldn't. Most of the people that I've talked to that have said that they're voting for him aren't supporters, they just don't want to vote for Clinton. Some of those people are people who don't like Clinton either, and also wouldn't vote for her no matter what. Some have nothing against her personally, they just don't like some of her political views and statements. I guess depending on which political view or statement that they disagree with depends on whether they are in the "deplorable" part or not.

---------- Post added 13th Sep 2016 at 03:14 AM ----------

He likes to use the bolded comment a lot. :rolle: He said something similar about alleged influence dealing when she was Secretary of State, before that it was the email scandal.

 

If you replace the label "super delegates" for electors (the people sent to the Electoral College) it's essentially correct. Of course no one actually has any electoral votes yet, but anyone can easily guess that Clinton (or ANY democratic candidate) is going to take certain states like California, New York, etc. For any Republican candidate to win the Electoral College vote, he'd have to win all the so called traditional Red states, plus swing a few others that can go either way, more so than any Democratic candidate. Trump is so unpopular that he can't even get traditional Republicans to vote for him. If any of those Republicans decide not to vote or vote third party, it's probably a win for Clinton. I only say probably because this is an odd year for third party candidates. Right now the polling for third party candidates is extremely low, but that could change just prior to the election, particularly if they are allowed to go to the debates.

In addition, the Libertarian candidate is doing something this time around that hasn't been done much before. They apparently are getting enough money or something to actually run ads in some swing states. A 3rd party candidate doesn't actually have to have more electoral college votes than Clinton or Trump to win the presidency, all they have to do is win enough to keep either one from getting to 270. Although I personally don't think it will happen, it's just that all the required conditions are present this time around to make it a remote possibility. The most critical one is probably the major party candidates would have to be unpopular with some members of his or her own party.

 

...there isn't approximately 4500 electoral college votes... So, no it's not essentially correct... I'm starting to wonder if I'm in a parallel universe. Purplewolf was comparing Hillary Clinton's primary pledged+superdelegates total to Trump's promary delegate total. It made no sense, sorry. That's not a correct comparison at all. And primary delegates have no impact on the general election.

Personally I think most party republicans will hold their nose and vote Trump. Pretty sure the republican members in my family will be doing that.

 

No, I mixed up the primary numbers. 3rd party should get more focus and at least having Johnson in debates will get them more focus. Politically I link more with Stein more than anyone and its a shame people like me are left out.

I do admire your optimism with the 3rd party whereas most people dismiss them. We're under a two party system that's been around for hundreds of years lets try something new. Both parties favor unnecessary wars & corrupt wealthy bankers. What do we have to lose?

You're right I got those numbers from the primary. It remains to be seen what the votes for the general & super delegates will look like. I apologize.

Dems are doing it I just think they are more likely to hold their nose for Hillary than Reps are for Trump. IMHO. I don't know your political views but hope your family doesn't give you crap for them. I'm here for more discussions in the future(*hug*).