We're past this. The GOP is trying to burn the ****ing country to the ground. They are fascists, traitors to every ideal this country is supposed to represent. We need to learn a lesson from the Weimar approach to these people: it didn't work, and the entire world paid the price for that mistake. We can't let that happen in the world's foremost nuclear superpower.
Okay, so what are you proposing and how exactly does calling them names help your master plan?
Correct. The actual quote:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
It's not half, it's the vast majority. And they aren't "deplorable," they're monsters. She was sugarcoating the truth. She saw what so many of us didn't want to see, and she was brave enough to actually say it, sortof.
You haven't actually disproven, or for that matter disputed or even acknowledged the probable facts that
A) anyone pleased or impressed by her comments would have voted Democratic regardless, so she didn't gain any votes from it,
B) equivocal conservatives were likely motivated by her open contempt to get out and vote, so Trump
did gain votes from it, and
C) equivocal independents were likely offput by her contempt for a quarter of the country (particularly if they had conservative friends/family) and just stayed home, so she likely
lost some votes from it.
Regardless of whether her description was accurate or not that's not "bravery," it's abject political stupidity. There's a reason why Trump's campaign latched onto it so strongly.
We aren't living in a sane country. Seventy-four million people voted for a criminal in 2020. He lost anyway, tried to steal the election, hid vital national secrets in his bathroom, and most of them still support him.
2020 isn't 2016. Clinton's abject political stupidity in lighting a fire under the ass of the "deplorables" to get out and vote against her could easily have been a deciding factor in tipping the election against her, and who knows how things would have played out if she'd taken the smarter path? It's worth noting that her description of the 'other half' in that speech was just as accurate and much more useful:
"But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel 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 heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
That was mostly just rhetoric from a center-right corporatist with no intention of promoting major systemic changes of course, but no less accurate for that. What kind of hope and change have the Democrats actually offered to those folk? Their 2020 response to Trump was to nominate an even older white bigot with credible sexual assault allegations of his own and mere percentage points of difference in his response to pressing issues like inequality and climate breakdown. As
@NolanVoyd is boasting (I guess?) in this thread, oil production increased under Biden, as did concentration of wealth. Their political strategy seems to pretty much just be the lesser evil; gradually scraping away at undermining the earth- and eco-system on which stable civilization is built rather than frantically digging, perpetuating a quieter kind of plutocracy rather than unsubtle authoritarian tendencies. How do we know their strategy is to be the 'lesser evil'? Because they actively support fascist-leaning candidates to be their political opponents:
Democratic strategists have spent millions of dollars to aid extremists, on the theory they’ll be easier to defeat in the general election. We will all live with the consequences
www.theguardian.com
That's an article from 2022 after all of the ugliest tendencies of the MAGA movement were finally on open display: Even then the Democrats were out there actively supporting the fascists, so that people like you can be driven by hatred of the people duped by them. Is that one of the lessons learned from the Weimar Republic? Is that part of your plan to stop them, or does it start and end with name-calling?
www.vox.com
www.worldpoliticsreview.com
www.reuters.com
Telling people you plan to either arrest or shoot them is certainly one way to encourage them to fight against you with every legal and illegal means at their disposal, and show everyone else that you're just as much an authoritarian extremist as they are. Sadly you're not the only one even on this forum. Bleating that "they said it first" is a relevant but hardly compelling point.