It may not have been “smart” for Clinton to be so “offensive” as to shine a light on the deplorables (meaning: “deserving strong condemnation” :origin: to weep for), but if it’s the truth. . .
A “highlight” from Charles Blow column in the NYT:
“A February Public Policy Polling survey found “Trump’s support in South Carolina is built on a base of voters among whom religious and racial intolerance pervades.” What the poll found about those South Carolina supporters’ beliefs was truly shocking:
• Eighty percent of likely Trump primary voters supported Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims.
• Sixty-two percent supported creating a national database of Muslims and 40 percent supported shutting down mosques in the United States.
• Thirty-eight percent wished the South had won the Civil War.
• Thirty-three percent thought the practice of Islam should be illegal in this country.
• Thirty-two percent supported the policy of Japanese internment during World War II.
• Thirty-one percent would support a ban on homosexuals entering the country.”
So. . .who do we “weep for” when so many in our country hold such detestable beliefs?
Detestable: “intensely unlikable.” (sorry if that offends)
After we “weep for” these folks, who has the courage to call them out?
(esp. if they’re a real jerk of a tree!)