Letter to the editor: Further grouping the deplorables | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Further grouping the deplorables

Hillary Clinton was wrong to call then-candidate Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorables.” Had she sub-grouped the Trumpites, as follows below, voters might have understood her point.

The enablers comprise one segment of Trump’s followers. They cringe at his lies and behavior and hate his tweets, but their GOP roots keep them mute, betraying their own values. Evangelicals give hypocrisy a bad name as they provide cover to the enablers.

Rallygoers, Trump’s most vocal group, clad in MAGA caps and T-shirts, swoon at his presence and swallow his lies as he mouths their inner thoughts. They dream of televised interviews where they’ll display their hatred of the reporter and show their ignorance.

The sycophants are elected officials or political appointees fearing Trump. They cower and tremble at the mention of his name (think Mitch McConnell). Privately they despise him, but refuse to say it.

The toadies include congressmen Guy Reschenthaler and Mike Kelley, who long for a ride on Air Force One or a call from the Oval Office. Having no original thoughts, they devour Republican National Committee talking points while sucking up to White House staff.

Following the white nationalist torch parade in Charlottesville, Va., with a cast of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and Klanners, Trump opined there were some “very fine people” among the marchers. Using his standard, I have to say the same of the above groups.

Glenn R. Plummer


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.