|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 01 2017 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 11:10 Nevuk wrote:On June 01 2017 11:05 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2017 11:01 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2017 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Post-election Hillary seems like the type of person who blames anything and anyone for her own failure to win an election that should have been easy pickings. Everything she has done since then reeks of opportunism of a particularly petty kind. It's like Trump if he didn't win the election. Except he wouldn't need to collect speech money from wealthy donors because he would be wealthier than half those donors. Uh, he took donations a plenty. He just misappropriated them right into paying for lawsuits he'd lost. I doubt he'd have stopped if he lost. Clinton is totally misplaying it though. If she had kept quiet for another 5-6 months and emerged as a quiet voice of reason instead of what she's currently doing then most people would be thinking about what an opportunity they'd passed up... I'm just a little confused. If the DNC is essentially a husk that she propped up, and they ignored progressives to pander to her and her donors, and now she's taking her donors and their money into her personal king (let's be honest, Queen) maker SuperPAC, plus the primary is just for show and not a real democratic event, why would people on the left continue to prop up the illusion of a "Democratic party"?
The Democratic Party is more than just the coffers for one election. Take a step back and start thinking about both parties as a mass of political candidates, all who raise their own money. They are ever changing based on leadership.
Or believe what you want. It's cool.
|
On June 01 2017 11:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 11:05 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2017 11:01 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2017 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Post-election Hillary seems like the type of person who blames anything and anyone for her own failure to win an election that should have been easy pickings. Everything she has done since then reeks of opportunism of a particularly petty kind. It's like Trump if he didn't win the election. Except he wouldn't need to collect speech money from wealthy donors because he would be wealthier than half those donors. Uh, he took donations a plenty. He just misappropriated them right into paying for lawsuits he'd lost. I doubt he'd have stopped if he lost. Clinton is totally misplaying it though. If she had kept quiet for another 5-6 months and emerged as a quiet voice of reason instead of what she's currently doing then most people would be thinking about what an opportunity they'd passed up...
She is playing hard into the notion that she's not much better than Trump right now. Hard to believe she'd be as bad or worse than Trump, but is this really the best we've got right now?
|
I'd rather have Clinton just sat in the back and done nothing but tweet things like that covfefe joke tweet once in a while.
Could've had that snarky air of, "lol, you all let THIS happen"
|
On June 01 2017 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 11:10 Nevuk wrote:On June 01 2017 11:05 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2017 11:01 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2017 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Post-election Hillary seems like the type of person who blames anything and anyone for her own failure to win an election that should have been easy pickings. Everything she has done since then reeks of opportunism of a particularly petty kind. It's like Trump if he didn't win the election. Except he wouldn't need to collect speech money from wealthy donors because he would be wealthier than half those donors. Uh, he took donations a plenty. He just misappropriated them right into paying for lawsuits he'd lost. I doubt he'd have stopped if he lost. Clinton is totally misplaying it though. If she had kept quiet for another 5-6 months and emerged as a quiet voice of reason instead of what she's currently doing then most people would be thinking about what an opportunity they'd passed up... I'm just a little confused. If the DNC is essentially a husk that she propped up, and they ignored progressives to pander to her and her donors, and now she's taking her donors and their money into her personal king (let's be honest, Queen) maker SuperPAC, plus the primary is just for show and not a real democratic event, why would people on the left continue to prop up the illusion of a "Democratic party"?
My guess is that it's a desperate grasp for relevance by Clinton. She burned bridges that were probably though unburnable by losing to Donald Trump. The DNC is highly unlikely to support another run by her after she so thoroughly squandered their resources. Clinton is claiming the DNC was useless, to get her diehard supporters to donate to her in the future, so that she can maintain some level of relevance as a donor of other people's monor via superPAC. It's a convoluted plan, but it's either that or she's just publicly whinging. Probably even odds.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 01 2017 11:41 Zambrah wrote:
Could've had that snarky air of, "lol, you all let THIS happen"
When she talks, we all get a collective sense of, "and now I remember why this happened."
|
On June 01 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 11:10 Nevuk wrote:On June 01 2017 11:05 LegalLord wrote:On June 01 2017 11:01 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2017 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Post-election Hillary seems like the type of person who blames anything and anyone for her own failure to win an election that should have been easy pickings. Everything she has done since then reeks of opportunism of a particularly petty kind. It's like Trump if he didn't win the election. Except he wouldn't need to collect speech money from wealthy donors because he would be wealthier than half those donors. Uh, he took donations a plenty. He just misappropriated them right into paying for lawsuits he'd lost. I doubt he'd have stopped if he lost. Clinton is totally misplaying it though. If she had kept quiet for another 5-6 months and emerged as a quiet voice of reason instead of what she's currently doing then most people would be thinking about what an opportunity they'd passed up... I'm just a little confused. If the DNC is essentially a husk that she propped up, and they ignored progressives to pander to her and her donors, and now she's taking her donors and their money into her personal king (let's be honest, Queen) maker SuperPAC, plus the primary is just for show and not a real democratic event, why would people on the left continue to prop up the illusion of a "Democratic party"? The Democratic Party is more than just the coffers for one election. Take a step back and start thinking about both parties as a mass of political candidates, all who raise their own money. They are ever changing based on leadership. Or believe what you want. It's cool.
This whole "the DNC is broke" isn't a recent phenomenon. If they "all raise their own money" why should anyone give any to the DNC?
I mean the DNC is still paying Donna Brazile $80k+ in a month, one would have to be a fool to donate to the DNC, and without money their pool of leeches political consultants evaporate and they are a completely empty organization save for politicians asking for money and abandoned zealots.
As a national organization they have little use, other than moving money out of places where they don't have consultants and such to pay (think the recent Kansas race) to races where they do have their network of leeches ready to suck down that corporate money.
|
This is why you shouldn't make mistakes with appearances. People jump on that shit and you'll never hear the end of it.
It's quite funny though 
|
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hillary is remarkably tone deaf. I fully believe that she doesn't understand why people don't like her and tries to justify it by circumstances (Russia, Comey, etc.) instead of owning up to the fact that she was more unpopular than any nominee other than Trump for a reason. Hillary being the other alternative is part of the reason I can't be that upset about a Trump presidency.
|
On June 01 2017 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate.
No one who was going to vote for her was like "oh what, she's a Pedo ringleader, pfft nevermind..." She lost because she was a uniquely bad choice to be the nominee for a long list of reasons.
If people continue to perpetuate this myth that it was "fake news" that cost her the election and not a long list of mistakes and flaws that made it so that something like "fake news" could be a deciding factor, we've got much bigger problems than "fake news".
|
On June 01 2017 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate. No one who was going to vote for her was like "oh what, she's a Pedo ringleader, pfft nevermind..." She lost because she was a uniquely bad choice to be the nominee for a long list of reasons. If people continue to perpetuate this myth that it was "fake news" that cost her the election and not a long list of mistakes and flaws that made it so that something like "fake news" could be a deciding factor, we've got much bigger problems than "fake news".
She had more votes than the other candidate though. People can't have seen her as such an evil candidate to begin with.
In most democratic countries around the world she would have won her election fair and square.
|
On June 01 2017 12:34 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate. No one who was going to vote for her was like "oh what, she's a Pedo ringleader, pfft nevermind..." She lost because she was a uniquely bad choice to be the nominee for a long list of reasons. If people continue to perpetuate this myth that it was "fake news" that cost her the election and not a long list of mistakes and flaws that made it so that something like "fake news" could be a deciding factor, we've got much bigger problems than "fake news". She had more votes than the other candidate though. People can't have seen her as such an evil candidate to begin with. In most democratic countries around the world she would have won her election fair and square.
In most democratic countries she wouldn't be the candidate for a "left" party.
|
On June 01 2017 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate. No one who was going to vote for her was like "oh what, she's a Pedo ringleader, pfft nevermind..." She lost because she was a uniquely bad choice to be the nominee for a long list of reasons. If people continue to perpetuate this myth that it was "fake news" that cost her the election and not a long list of mistakes and flaws that made it so that something like "fake news" could be a deciding factor, we've got much bigger problems than "fake news".
The negative media campaign that focused on trivia and was completely devoid of any actual content without a doubt screwed her bigly.
Lots of people went through the numbers regarding how much time the media actually covered political issues versus campaign drama, ant it was basically exclusively bullshit. That was the perfect environment for Trump, you can't really fight him on his level, you always lose.
If the election would have been less influenced by social media, twitter wars and all of this she would have won. And 'fake news' has to do with it, too. The number of clicks some of this outrageous stuff generated are insane. And you don't need to actually believe that Clinton runs a pedophile ring, you only need to confuse people to the point where they cannot see that Clinton was magnitudes better than Trump.
If you've demobilised people to the point where they think "I can't hear this crap anymore, they're all the same" etc.. and the voters don't turn out you've basically lost already.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By that logic Obama should have been slaughtered by the slander against him - such as that he was a secret Muslim and his pal Bill Ayers was a terrorist, and he was a believer of the teachings of Rev Wright. Just because it would be enough to confuse people away from voting Obama.
|
On June 01 2017 12:48 LegalLord wrote:
By that logic Obama should have been slaughtered by the slander against him - such as that he was a secret Muslim and his pal Bill Ayers was a terrorist, and he was a believer of the teachings of Rev Wright. Just because it would be enough to confuse people away from voting Obama.
Don't forget he wasn't actually an American.
|
On June 01 2017 12:43 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2017 12:34 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On June 01 2017 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't believe that Clinton needs to do some game of thrones like walk of shame. She had a very sound program and was the victim of a ridiculous campaign against her person. It shouldn't have even been close. If you obsess over the Clinton choice you neglect the institutional problems that seem to especially plague the US.
If candidates lose elections because of risotto recipes in emails and fake pedophile rings in non-existent basements you've got a bigger problem than an uncharismatic candidate. No one who was going to vote for her was like "oh what, she's a Pedo ringleader, pfft nevermind..." She lost because she was a uniquely bad choice to be the nominee for a long list of reasons. If people continue to perpetuate this myth that it was "fake news" that cost her the election and not a long list of mistakes and flaws that made it so that something like "fake news" could be a deciding factor, we've got much bigger problems than "fake news". She had more votes than the other candidate though. People can't have seen her as such an evil candidate to begin with. In most democratic countries around the world she would have won her election fair and square. In most democratic countries she wouldn't be the candidate for a "left" party.
In most democratic countries, the Democrats would'nt be a 'left' party.
|
|
|
On June 01 2017 12:48 LegalLord wrote:
By that logic Obama should have been slaughtered by the slander against him - such as that he was a secret Muslim and his pal Bill Ayers was a terrorist, and he was a believer of the teachings of Rev Wright. Just because it would be enough to confuse people away from voting Obama.
Both the first campaign and the campaign against Romney were not like this. They weren't as negative or as dirty. The conspiracies and all the crap where there but they didn't dominate the whole election. I've never seen something like the Clinton / Trump campaign. Hell we had Trump defending his dick size against Rubio right at the start, and it actually got less professional from that point on.
|
White house exempt from white house rules. rofl. I guess when they said "no brakes", they didn't really define what brakes are.
|
This seems unlikely. Can anyone name 1 problem that god has solved by himself in recent history? Cause I sure can't. Does he feel that way about every problem or just this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
