BrokenGlepnir

That's a bit less than half of the people "exterminated" (murdered) in the holocaust according to common estimates. The holocaust also does not include all of the evils committed. It doesn't include civilian slavs dragged out of their home and shot into mass graves, without ever making it to a camp for instance. I understand that there's other things Churchill did, but I think it's hard to do the level of damage hitler did without the belief that the damage was good for its own sake. I think Churchill did some bad stuff of course, but there are differences in magnitude and intent. If Churchill had meant to do the damage hitler had meant to, we'd probably have seen tens of millions of dead Indian people.

I think I can say clearly if her words put together never meant all by the definitions of those words.

Her eyes are so wide

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

There wasn't ambiguity to clear up in context, but she did regret saying "half" of his supporters. She was clearly never saying all of them. Unless you remove the context.

I think he's done with the day

I would agree that it was aggressive and alienating. Another issue is that it was extremely easy to take out of context, which it widely has been. It's so it of context that people who didn't know the context proudly labeled themselves as "deplorable" showing solidarity with David Duke. Never realizing that's who the original context was about. But it's hard to speak in a way that will never be taken out of context. "You didn't build that" for another example.

She didn't. If they weren't voting for trump she didn't call them deplorable. Also, she was referring to only a subset of trump voters. She said you could separate trump supporters into two groups, one was a basket of deplorables. They seem fine with "murderers rapist and thieves and some I assume are good people ", but "there are neo nazis supporting this man, we need to reach the non nei nazis on his side" is too far.

He may still be up there pterodactyl's did not have tits. They were not mammals.

Pineapples are ribbed for pleasure

I think it's a cross over, with two artists

It's old enough that I don't actually know where is originally from. Another use posted something from over five years ago, and a comment is saying the image is "old enough to get its learner's permit". Maybe a hyperbole but that's what it feels like.

This image is ancient. That may just be an artifact, ai generation at that time as a lot more trippy. I think this is before deep dream.