De Plorable Unum

Hillary Clinton’s mean-spirited put-down of half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” gives further proof that she is the real “basket case.”

The term, itself, is so archaic that I keep forgetting it. I have to remind myself that it rhymes with “adorable,” though I’m sure that adjective is not in Her Heinous’ anti-Trump vocabulary. Yet somehow the strange term fits Hillary’s image as a relic of the past. She has not driven a car for over 20 years. Her excuse is that the Secret Service demands it. Nor does she demonstrate the slightest understanding of technology, for which there is no excuse. So Hillary’s outrageous use of a quaint metaphor suits her well.

It doesn’t suit in other ways, though. We have many hundreds of millions of voters in America but only two major contenders running for president. A candidate cannot be excoriated for the makeup of his supporters any more than a novelist can be blamed for those who read his books.

Further, Hillary’s blast at Trump supporters defies Logic 101, since the premise is suspect. To hold water, arguments must be based on fact, not mere assumption. Classic example:

In most states, American citizens over 18 are eligible to vote.

John Doe, 20, is an American citizen.

Therefore, in most states, John Doe is eligible to vote.

Without getting too technical about propositional logic, it’s fair to say that the first two statements in this formula must be accurate in order for the conclusion to be the same. If in the premise you substitute the word” “permitted” for “eligible” it changes things. And if John Doe is only 16 and is not an American citizen as stated, it also invalidates the conclusion.

What Hillary Clinton took for granted in her accusation was this:

Donald Trump is a bigot who incites followers.

Half of these followers are bigots.

Therefore, they support Trump.

The “proof” for charging Trump as a bigot, sexist, or racist resides solely in the feverish minds of Clinton advocates. And from that yearning comes the claim that those who support Trump are equally guilty of phobias and disparaging “isms.” Trump’s remark about Carly Fiorina’s face has been metastasized into his supposed deep-seated misogyny, even though the facts of Trump’s life dispute that. His response to personal attacks by a gold-star parent is presumed to mark him for life as an Islamophobe. And although he has repudiated rather than encouraged the ideological followers of David Duke, he is branded as a racist. By conveniently creating a Monster Trump, Hillary’s camp legitimizes its monstrous charges against him and those who intend to vote for him.

In the case of the “deplorables,” however, the uproar went viral. And once again Hillary Clinton is “walking back” an imprudent remark. Months ago I suggested this happens so often, she should start wearing her pantsuits backwards.  

The candidate has become a nonstop apologist for her own blunders. But it does not end there. Her surrogates fall in lockstep to pull her fat out of the fire of poor judgment. I feel for them. They cannot manage to discuss this issue, or any others, without changing the subject and pointing another finger of blame at The Donald. In their rebuttals, the “but” is foremost. “She shouldn’t have said this or done that… But...

No doubt, Madame Secretary fancied the basket metaphor to be as clever as her gimmicky Soviet “reset” button. Although she introduced the slur as “grossly generalistic” -- a rather elitist-sounding phrase -- she just couldn’t resist laying it out there nonetheless. Clearly, she places a higher value on fanfare than on fairness.

Even more demeaning than the remark itself, however, was the outburst of laughter that greeted it. Hillary was fundraising at a group of LGBT supporters. Surely, these folks are aware of the deep humiliation experienced when groups of outsiders laugh at and demean them. Yet without personally knowing any of these tarnished Republicans, the crowd dismissed them in the same insufferable manner.

The greatest irony, however, is Clinton’s use of the campaign slogan “Stronger Together”, while tearing Americans apart in her hunger for power. It is hard to imagine that, if elected, Hillary would be president to all the people, or if she would visit revenge on those who opposed her. 

If Clinton misspoke about the “basket of deplorables,” she is also dead wrong about this: The “other half” of Trump voters aren’t necessarily for him on strictly economic grounds, or even out of a sense of general frustration. Some of us are for Trump because we abhor Hillary. We cringe at the thought of the hypocritical Clintons back in the White House. The last time they left, they pilfered several items of furniture and flatware that rightly belonged to the American people. Those had to be returned, but the Clintons don’t.  

Hillary Clinton’s mean-spirited put-down of half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” gives further proof that she is the real “basket case.”

The term, itself, is so archaic that I keep forgetting it. I have to remind myself that it rhymes with “adorable,” though I’m sure that adjective is not in Her Heinous’ anti-Trump vocabulary. Yet somehow the strange term fits Hillary’s image as a relic of the past. She has not driven a car for over 20 years. Her excuse is that the Secret Service demands it. Nor does she demonstrate the slightest understanding of technology, for which there is no excuse. So Hillary’s outrageous use of a quaint metaphor suits her well.

It doesn’t suit in other ways, though. We have many hundreds of millions of voters in America but only two major contenders running for president. A candidate cannot be excoriated for the makeup of his supporters any more than a novelist can be blamed for those who read his books.

Further, Hillary’s blast at Trump supporters defies Logic 101, since the premise is suspect. To hold water, arguments must be based on fact, not mere assumption. Classic example:

In most states, American citizens over 18 are eligible to vote.

John Doe, 20, is an American citizen.

Therefore, in most states, John Doe is eligible to vote.

Without getting too technical about propositional logic, it’s fair to say that the first two statements in this formula must be accurate in order for the conclusion to be the same. If in the premise you substitute the word” “permitted” for “eligible” it changes things. And if John Doe is only 16 and is not an American citizen as stated, it also invalidates the conclusion.

What Hillary Clinton took for granted in her accusation was this:

Donald Trump is a bigot who incites followers.

Half of these followers are bigots.

Therefore, they support Trump.

The “proof” for charging Trump as a bigot, sexist, or racist resides solely in the feverish minds of Clinton advocates. And from that yearning comes the claim that those who support Trump are equally guilty of phobias and disparaging “isms.” Trump’s remark about Carly Fiorina’s face has been metastasized into his supposed deep-seated misogyny, even though the facts of Trump’s life dispute that. His response to personal attacks by a gold-star parent is presumed to mark him for life as an Islamophobe. And although he has repudiated rather than encouraged the ideological followers of David Duke, he is branded as a racist. By conveniently creating a Monster Trump, Hillary’s camp legitimizes its monstrous charges against him and those who intend to vote for him.

In the case of the “deplorables,” however, the uproar went viral. And once again Hillary Clinton is “walking back” an imprudent remark. Months ago I suggested this happens so often, she should start wearing her pantsuits backwards.  

The candidate has become a nonstop apologist for her own blunders. But it does not end there. Her surrogates fall in lockstep to pull her fat out of the fire of poor judgment. I feel for them. They cannot manage to discuss this issue, or any others, without changing the subject and pointing another finger of blame at The Donald. In their rebuttals, the “but” is foremost. “She shouldn’t have said this or done that… But...

No doubt, Madame Secretary fancied the basket metaphor to be as clever as her gimmicky Soviet “reset” button. Although she introduced the slur as “grossly generalistic” -- a rather elitist-sounding phrase -- she just couldn’t resist laying it out there nonetheless. Clearly, she places a higher value on fanfare than on fairness.

Even more demeaning than the remark itself, however, was the outburst of laughter that greeted it. Hillary was fundraising at a group of LGBT supporters. Surely, these folks are aware of the deep humiliation experienced when groups of outsiders laugh at and demean them. Yet without personally knowing any of these tarnished Republicans, the crowd dismissed them in the same insufferable manner.

The greatest irony, however, is Clinton’s use of the campaign slogan “Stronger Together”, while tearing Americans apart in her hunger for power. It is hard to imagine that, if elected, Hillary would be president to all the people, or if she would visit revenge on those who opposed her. 

If Clinton misspoke about the “basket of deplorables,” she is also dead wrong about this: The “other half” of Trump voters aren’t necessarily for him on strictly economic grounds, or even out of a sense of general frustration. Some of us are for Trump because we abhor Hillary. We cringe at the thought of the hypocritical Clintons back in the White House. The last time they left, they pilfered several items of furniture and flatware that rightly belonged to the American people. Those had to be returned, but the Clintons don’t.