LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ comment worst of campaign

I’ve never cared for Hillary Clinton, who is most liable to be our next president, and I wasn’t happy with the idea of voting for Donald Trump, but the campaign shenanigans have made me realize I cannot in good conscience vote for either.

Even if I voted the Republican ticket, heavily Democratic northern Delaware will ensure the state’s electoral vote goes to Clinton. Therefore, my protest vote is going to that other idiot; you know the one, the fellow who didn’t know what Aleppo was. Yes, I know his name, but the media doesn’t seem to. I have to give [Libertarian candidate Gary] Johnson this, that’s the only stupid remark he’s made that I’ve heard the press report on, so, that’s saying something, isn’t it?

Of all the offensive things I’ve heard during this election, the worst has to be the “deplorables” comment. Seriously, that high-falutin’ education of Clinton’s has really paid off. She’s invented a new use for a word by adding an “s,” and it hasn’t even come out of the domain of slang. As a hobbyist philologer, I am impressed, and I don’t stir easily. After all, “deplorables” follows the rules of English.

Someone has to approach Webster’s lexicographers about this new usage because it must necessarily go into the dictionary lest that woman ever forget she invented it.

I know some folks voting for Trump. They are hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying good citizens who never asked anyone for anything except the equality granted all of us as a constitutional right. I don’t think someone who would come up with a word like “deplorables” knows much about equality.

Truly, Clinton was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has since exhibited a propensity for entitlement. I mean, come on, she’s a classic, right down to her selection of marriage material. I wonder how much Bill ticked her daddy off when she dragged him home.

I think Clinton went to law school not so much to learn how to interpret as to rewrite. This disingenuous, collegiate creature’s elitism is about as compatible with the Democratic Party’s historic philosophical stance as Trump is a dyed-in-the wool Republican.

I’m a grown-up. I can get over that should she become president, but she said something recently that really bothered me. It was a convoluted comment that I apologize for not being able to recall verbatim, but to paraphrase, she said something to the effect that the housing market’s woes could be resolved by immigration.

I put that statement in the same league as Bush 2.0’s “crusade” comment, and I about died when he used that word. Truly, can anyone out there understand the cringe factor people who love words are subject to when they listen to such rhetoric?

Alas, what is Clinton proposing; that the United States fill its vacant houses (there are many and are liable to be a whole lot more when the boomers die) with immigrants whose political and theological ideologies are diametrically opposed to our constitutional form of government? I know my query suggests I have more in common with Donald Trump than I do, but not everything the man says is stupid, whereas most every position she broadcasts strikes me as hazardous to my health and happiness.

Carol Hotte
Felton

You are encouraged to leave relevant comments but engaging in personal attacks, threats, online bullying or commercial spam will not be allowed. All comments should remain within the bounds of fair play and civility. (You can disagree with others courteously, without being disagreeable.) Feel free to express yourself but keep an open mind toward finding value in what others say. To report abuse or spam, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box.