|
coathat posted:Well no Hillary supporter would think ill of bombing Iran. Yes, Hillary Clinton, supporter of the Iran Nuclear Deal, was the real war monger running for president.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
zegermans posted:It's pretty annoying how those black people that liked her don't live in the correct states but were allowed to vote regardless and derail St. Bernard. Hiliary Clinton cared so much about Black people that she gave Mike "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg a prime time speaking slot at the loving convention! Or how she was so embracing of BLM and talking about how we need pumice reform or talked about the constant shame that is the Flint water crisis. Or how she came to the defence of the Native protesters at the DAPL. Yup that was quite a social justice campaign she ran
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Hiliary Clinton cared so much about Black people that she gave Mike "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg a prime time speaking slot at the loving convention! Or how she was so embracing of BLM and talking about how we need pumice reform or talked about the constant shame that is the Flint water crisis. Or how she came to the defence of the Native protesters at the DAPL. Yup that was quite a social justice campaign she ran So are you saying black people were just too ignorant of the issues to know how to vote right? Anyway, they had the moms of a half-dozen black men that were lynched by the police speak at the convention, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yes, Hillary Clinton, supporter of the Iran Nuclear Deal, was the real war monger running for president. She was before her presidential run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
zegermans posted:So are you saying black people were just too ignorant of the issues to know how to vote right? But she didn't really CAAAAAAAAARE! In her HEAAAAAAART!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
zegermans posted:So are you saying black people were just too ignorant of the issues to know how to vote right? No, I'm calling bullshit on your insistence that Hiliary was beloved by black people. That I know plenty of black people that hated her for poo poo like "super predators" and didn't believe an ounce of the words she said on anything. And me, as the white guy trying to get them to vote for her anyway, repeating the same arguments I heard all summer from people like you on why they should support her feel on deaf ears. Maybe the take away is maybe she should have actually ran on social justice instead of trying to appeal to loving Republicans! When Democrats try and get Republicans to vote for them, the Republicans still vote republican and DEMOCRATS STAY HOME BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS! Will you loving get that all goddamn ready.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
You'll see. After four years of Trump moderate Republicans will be itching to vote for Corey Booker in 2020 instead of falling in line like they do every year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yes, Hillary Clinton, supporter of the Iran Nuclear Deal, was the real war monger running for president. Considering her Syria policy seemed tailored to provoking a war with the Russians, yes, she was the real war monger running for president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:You'll see. After four years of Trump moderate Republicans will be itching to vote for Corey Booker in 2020 instead of falling in line like they do every year. I fully expect the 2020 dem platform to call for a complete legalization of weed, free college, and medicare for all and this forum will find a reason to hate the candidate (if it is anyone other than the one supported in the primaries) because ~reasons~ SimonCat posted:Considering her Syria policy seemed tailored to provoking a war with the Russians, yes, she was the real war monger running for president. I, too, form my opinions on Hillary Clinton's policies from Breitbart.com, am also a committed leftist. KomradeX posted:No, I'm calling bullshit on your insistence that Hiliary was beloved by black people. That I know plenty of black people that hated her for poo poo like "super predators" and didn't believe an ounce of the words she said on anything. And me, as the white guy trying to get them to vote for her anyway, repeating the same arguments I heard all summer from people like you on why they should support her feel on deaf ears. Maybe the take away is maybe she should have actually ran on social justice instead of trying to appeal to loving Republicans! When Democrats try and get Republicans to vote for them, the Republicans still vote republican and DEMOCRATS STAY HOME BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS! Will you loving get that all goddamn ready. Counterpoint to your anecdote: she won more black votes than any other white person in history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I was talking to you in particular, because you seemed to be hankering to become more involved, but somehow waiting for permission. Local political parties aren't generally all that organized. If they don't call you back, it's because they don't have the manpower, not because they spit on your efforts/demographic. well, that's why i'm messaging and calling whoever i can. i'm making mockups for elected representatives with bad websites (who are paying for hosting out of their campaign fundraising) and trying to see if we can't get the state party to create a more supportive infrastructure for both elected representatives and potential candidates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It could be part of the reason Hillary did worse with black men then with black women. I suspect it's more to do with the "manly jobs" factor of Trump's campaign personally, but either way BG aggressively and deliberately misportrays the arguments people have been making. The SOP for liberals is to run in circles until they can find out how someone is racist and/or sexist and then stop caring about what they have to say because they're such terrible people. Forgive me if I don't take your "sexism is worth looking into" in good faith because it's rapidly becoming the "just asking questions" of the left. You're rapidly running out of allies considering white men are too racist/sexist, the progressive wing of the party doesn't care about social justice "remember, regulating the banks doesn't end racism!", and now you're starting down the same path wrt poc men.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:I had thought that after 2008 she had learned her lesson on valuing loyalty over competency in her subordinates but reading all the takes on her campaign the night after and she did exactly the same thing as before. You got some handy? Was on a politics sabbatical right after the election. EDIT: Did hear about the canvassers in MI being sent to an abandoned trailer park, lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Counterpoint to your anecdote: she won more black votes than any other white person in history. And still got a smaller count of the vote compared to Obama and lost to a racist loving Cheeto. Anecdote or not, let's let the myth that your beloved Abuela was loved by black people go. Cause when push came to gently caress shove she cared more about affluent white republicans than she did Black people because she did not run on helping them at loving all. And they didn't vote for her in the same numbers as they did Obama and if you don't think that because she showed she didn't care didn't hurt her with the electorate I don't know what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
zegermans posted:
Wow, just, wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I fully expect the 2020 dem platform to call for a complete legalization of weed, free college, and medicare for all and this forum will find a reason to hate the candidate (if it is anyone other than the one supported in the primaries) because ~reasons~ It's funny the leftists are the ones called on being too intransigent and committed to ideological purity when it's the Democrats that are willing to lose elections repeatedly rather than change their platforms. A little over a month ago this forum was Hillary town (myself included) but a bunch of stupid toxxes cleared a lot of that out so don't pretend this place has some sort of inherent bias against Democrats and everyone is just so unreasonable when they want them to actually have to campaign or get people to actual vote for them instead of vote against their opponents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Itd be really nice if they ever made a poll about who voted for clinton as opposed to voting against trump
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:The SOP for liberals is to run in circles until they can find out how someone is racist and/or sexist and then stop caring about what they have to say because they're such terrible people. Forgive me if I don't take your "sexism is worth looking into" in good faith because it's rapidly becoming the "just asking questions" of the left. You are imagining all of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's funny the leftists are the ones called on being too intransigent and committed to ideological purity when it's the Democrats that are willing to lose elections repeatedly rather than change their platforms. TBF I think the distinction is we want candidates that actually follow through on their platform as opposed to run away from it at warp speed the second the election is over
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:TBF I think the distinction is we want candidates that actually follow through on their platform as opposed to run away from it at warp speed the second the election is over Frankly I would be content at willing elections at this point although I would rather have them actually enact a leftist agenda. However it really feels like the party faithful are much more concerned with defending the status quo and finding scapegoats other than the people that are supposed to be in charge of getting people to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
John Podesta clicked on a free-ring tone link and owned Hillary Clinton. Also they didn't tell their own party members in another org within the same building, because LEAKZ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You are imagining all of this. Watching the entirety of the USPol thread write off the entire state of Ohio for being "racist" since trump was up by 1% in October must have been a fever dream then Edit: Clintonistas went "gently caress em we don't need em" to most of the core planks of the Obama coalition. Turns out they were more than happy to not show up
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Also Tillerson's wiki page was scrubbed of his Putin Medal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Watching the entirety of the USPol thread write off the entire state of Ohio for being "racist" since trump was up by 1% in October must have been a fever dream then Yeah when the Senate leader of your party says he doesn't care if his party's voters show up, you don't get to them cry tears that it's the fault of those voters that you lost. Basically at least the leftists complaining seem like they care about winning and getting into power. Anyone trying to say that voters SHOULD have come out if they know what best for them may be right, but that doens't help win elections. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Itd be really nice if they ever made a poll about who voted for clinton as opposed to voting against trump I don't think even Clinton is as obsessed with Clinton as you are. Consider moving on, or at least posting about something else for 5 minutes. She's old news, bro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think even Clinton is as obsessed with Clinton as you are. Consider moving on, or at least posting about something else for 5 minutes. She's old news, bro. Until January she's literally all you will hear about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Watching the entirety of the USPol thread write off the entire state of Ohio for being "racist" since trump was up by 1% in October must have been a fever dream then Given the lies you've been making up in this thread, probably. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't make the other stuff true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Watching the entirety of the USPol thread write off the entire state of Ohio for being "racist" since trump was up by 1% in October must have been a fever dream then I watched both rallies (Trump & Clinton) for Ohio and I must say it was very clear after that why Hillary lost the election. Not only did he devote more time but he also actually spoke to the electorate on their own term while connecting them to national issues. (the wall and corrupted establishment) Hillary by comparison mostly roasted Trump's businesses dealings why only focusing on policy decisions affecting 20-30 year old's. She did not capture the worries present within the region.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Really it's a lot like the 1980 election where the republican sells snake oil and feel good promises, except this time the democrat didn't even try to offer a heartfelt message of struggle and perseverance for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Well, if it's any comfort the democrats lost both times. Looking at Europe the reverse against market-fundamentalism is only a matter of time. Trump and Hillary were the last stand against something which is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I, too, form my opinions on Hillary Clinton's policies from Breitbart.com, am also a committed leftist. She stated in a primary debate that she was in favor of regime change in Syria. She also publicly stated she supported a no-fly zone over Syria. She had no answer regarding her plan of action for when the Russians would violate that no-fly zone. She was in favor of regime change in Iraq and Libya and wanted to continue to destabilize the Middle East. One of her friends and mentors is Henry Kissinger. How you can claim that Hillary is a pro-peace candidate is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I watched both rallies (Trump & Clinton) for Ohio and I must say it was very clear after that why Hillary lost the election. Not only did he devote more time but he also actually spoke to the electorate on their own term while connecting them to national issues. (the wall and corrupted establishment) Hillary by comparison mostly roasted Trump's businesses dealings why only focusing on policy decisions affecting 20-30 year old's. She did not capture the worries present within the region. Remember when her plan for student loans was to delay repayment if you started a small business? She really didn't hit the 20-30 year olds either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Remember when her plan for student loans was to delay repayment if you started a small business? She really didn't hit the 20-30 year olds either. Yeah, it's like she adopted the parts of Berny's message which didn't conflict with her core and absolutely nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:How you can claim that Hillary is a pro-peace candidate is beyond me. Not so much "pro-peace" as "less likely to flip out and invade random countries." A low bar, but an important one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not so much "pro-peace" as "less likely to flip out and invade random countries." A low bar, but an important one. Also demonstrably false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not so much "pro-peace" as "less likely to flip out and invade random countries." A low bar, but an important one. and you wonder why nobody could be bothered to vote for her "she might start some wars, but its better than maybe starting some wars"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not so much "pro-peace" as "less likely to flip out and invade random countries." A low bar, but an important one. Well the difference is that Clinton would have absolutely started a war in the middle east while Trump while unlikely might start WW3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Well the difference is that Clinton would have absolutely started a war in the middle east while Trump while unlikely might start WW3. I'd say: Clinton would have continued the wars in the Middle East, probably not starting new ones (but not guaranteed.) Trump will continue the current wars in the Middle East, definitely start a new one (probably Iran) and has a worrying chance of taking the American War Machine to somewhere else entirely (WTF is up with him and Taiwan?)/ starting WW3. So Clinton is no peacenik, but Trump is a maniac. Remember, the US presidential contest was NOT between Clinton and Sanders (civilized though that would have been.) A lot of people here seem to forget this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Remember when her plan for student loans was to delay repayment if you started a small business? She really didn't hit the 20-30 year olds either. No she did of you consider the 20-30 year olds of the affluent "moderate" Republicans to be who she focused on. That's the real hilarious thing was during the the primary you had the Hilbots all complaining that the Sanders voters weren't real Democrats and they were trying to take off their party. Come the election the Democrats say gently caress our voters we don't need them we'll take on all the "moderate" republicans. That whole wing of the party has been trying to turn the Democrats into the less racist Conservative party and how Hiliary loving ran into ground showed their hand and they still think it can loving work even after the embarrassment of just barley a month ago
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'd say: Trump is not a maniac, he's a truly wild actor. No one can perceive his actions and as such he's just as likely to invade Russia over a twitter insult as he is to do nothing. The fact that ultimate military power rests in the presidential seat makes it impossible to predict what he might do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Well, if it's any comfort the democrats lost both times. Two of Trump's most consistent campaign themes were opposition to trade agreements and a related anti-immigration platform, and they were the basis of much of his support, he wasn't the last stand of market-fundamentalism at all (though that's not how he'll govern). The reversal has already begun, the question is the form that it will ultimately take- i.e. fascism-lite or social-democracy-lite (or social unrest that breaks up the current system). Both parties seem to be wildly incapable of seizing the moment- the Republicans have all the actual power of government, but have a wildly unpopular president and policy platform, are still wedded to hardcore market-fundamentalism and are intent of making politically suicidal cuts to the social safety net, and ultimately lack the intentionality needed to actually solidify their gains. The Democrats are feckless cowards whose leadership seems stuck in the past and incapable of making changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:03
|
|
