|
Toadvine posted:Too bad Hillary couldn't makeup a reason to vote for her! So a comedy hack bootlicker is defending the first black president who is half white for taking money for "speeches" and using his skin color to deflect any criticism of this widely used non-ethical practice? I'm shocked.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
I found that tweet in a cspam thread about democrats and wouldn't ya know it, there are still posters down there who think Hillary didn't sufficiently control her message and if she only stayed in front of all these scandals more effectively than democrats would still be sitting pretty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Krustic posted:So a comedy hack bootlicker is defending the first black president who is half white for taking money for "speeches" and using his skin color to deflect any criticism of this widely used non-ethical practice? I'm shocked. why are you a racist, you're probably a Kremlin-paid posting bot
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:I found that tweet in a cspam thread about democrats and wouldn't ya know it, there are still posters down there who think Hillary didn't sufficiently control her message and if she only stayed in front of all these scandals more effectively than democrats would still be sitting pretty. She lost states by a smaller margin than the number of people who voted but just left the President part of the ballot blank. I think it's fair to say that if she had done pretty much anything better she would've won. That's not a compliment, just to be clear. I mean that in the most insulting way possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:I found that tweet in a cspam thread about democrats and wouldn't ya know it, there are still posters down there who think Hillary didn't sufficiently control her message and if she only stayed in front of all these scandals more effectively than democrats would still be sitting pretty. let's play a little game http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:I found that tweet in a cspam thread about democrats and wouldn't ya know it, there are still posters down there who think Hillary didn't sufficiently control her message and if she only stayed in front of all these scandals more effectively than democrats would still be sitting pretty. Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton 04/28/2017 08:37 am ET | Updated 0 minutes ago Okay, before I go any further, let me state unequivocally for the record that I believe Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern political history. Her management was inept, her messaging misguided, and her character terribly flawed. Let’s put this into proper perspective: she lost to Donald Trump, for gently caress’s sake! A colossal joke of a candidate who by all accounts should’ve lost to a chair. As the saying goes, the election was Clinton’s to lose... and she lost it. So why on Earth would I want her to run again in 2020? The answer is rather simple: I remain committed to the belief that Clinton would be an incredible president. And I believe she not only will run again, as her recent and outspoken re-launch onto the public stage indicates, but that she will also win. No, I’m not crazy. I just believe that history repeats itself. And for that we simply need to look to Richard Nixon. It was 1960. The first televised presidential debate. Nixon refused make-up. John F. Kennedy, well, he was JFK. The battle pitted the young, charismatic Democratic upstart with the movie-star looks against the nervous, sweaty, 5 o’clock-shadowed, beady-eyed, prematurely-aged Republican. The rest is history. As is Nixon’s startling comeback eight years later to win not one but two presidential elections. Times change. Situations change. People change. Can Hillary? My money’s on yes. Clinton is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. A prestigious legal career, eight years as First Lady, another eight as U.S. Senator from New York and four years as Secretary of State. A die-hard progressive who voted 93 percent of the time with Sen. Bernie Sanders when both served together. And, she’s a woman... and it’s loving time America is led by a woman. The key to the 2020 election is that Trump will no longer be a political outsider who can lie through his teeth 24/7. No more outlandish positions and pie-in-the-sky promises. That con-game can only work once. Next time he’ll be running on his record, not Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s, or his own bloviating, self-aggrandizing uber-hype. Voters will judge him on whether he delivered or not. Did they get their wall, and did Mexico pay for it? Did he fix immigration and “extreme vetting?” Did he “rid the world of ISIS” as he’s already declared he’s doing? Did he prevent terror attacks on U.S. soil? Did he keep China, North Korea, Russia and Syria in check? Did he and Boy Wonder Jared Kushner achieve Israeli/Arab peace? Did he favorably renegotiate, or terminate, NAFTA? Did he get our NATO allies to “pay their fair share?” Did he bring back the factory and coal jobs? Did he give the poor and middle class their big tax cuts? Did he give them better and cheaper healthcare? Did the economy grow 3 percent+ annually? Did he reduce the debt and deficit? Did he create as many if not more jobs as Obama? Did he ‘drain the swamp’ or fill his cabinet with it? Did all the tough talk and bluster translate to action and results? In short, did he make their America ‘great again?’ To be sure, Trump’s biggest asset during the campaign was his masterful manipulation of his base through an endless barrage of big promises, lies and political rope-a-dope. But now these same qualities are his biggest liability. As Aaron Burr reminds Hamilton in the Broadway musical, “Winning was easy, governing’s harder.” It’s a lot more fun to promise the world as a candidate than to defend against having accomplished nothing after four years as president. Plus, a weakened Trump will more than likely be primaried by a slew of retreads like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and John Kasich, as well as new challengers such as Nikki Haley, Paul Ryan, Sen. Ben Sasse (NE) or even another outsider billionaire like Marc Cuban. All of whom would do much of Clinton’s bidding for her. But if Trump succeeds in fulfilling his campaign promises and, more so, improves the lives of his voters, then he would likely win again. But his MAGA crowd—the sleeping beast who he roused off the couch and motivated, often with sexist, racist rhetoric, to vote for him—won’t have the same drive, passion and commitment for him if they end up disappointed and feeling conned. Some of them, like Kraig Moss, who I wrote about earlier in the week, have already jumped ship. Many millions more could follow. It could get very, very ugly for the man who, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll, already has the lowest approval rating (44 percent) in modern presidential history. Let’s keep in mind that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. Nothing to sneeze at, and certainly a strong foundation from which to build even further support these next three years, especially if Trump continues to struggle. And it’s not like Trump gave her a Reagan-like trouncing with his electoral college total either. While he loves to brag at how “massive” his win was, he snagged the presidency with just 306 electoral votes, among the lowest in modern history. Factor in FBI Director James Comey’s unprecedented last-minute politically-based clusterfuck, and Russia’s hack and overall influence in the election, and it’s not hard to understand how the Democrats’ heretofore rock-solid “blue wall” (PA, MI, WI) was lost by the thinnest of margins, giving Trump a squeaker of a victory. If Clinton runs the first thing she’ll need to do is assemble a kick-rear end team. No more Robby Mook, with his millennial naivete and obsession with useless data, or Huma Abedin, who’s saddled with Anthony Weiner’s humiliating legacy. Clinton needs to do whatever’s humanly possible, including begging, to get Bill’s old band back together: Paul Begala, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos. And throw in Obama’s brain, David Axelrod, for good measure. She also needs a few truly sharp, aggressive young strategic soldiers, such as Bakari Sellers for example, to assist with media and messaging. She also needs a War Room, like the one Bill had, to deftly and swiftly address each attack... and there’ll be plenty of them again. The next thing Clinton will need to do is study Trump like she’s never done before. Every tick. Every tell. Every position. His speeches, his rhythms, his overall appeal. She must painstakingly study what he did to connect so powerfully with the “Trump Democrats,” a constituency that should rightfully be hers. Lastly, she must look within. She must do an honest and forensic review of her many gaffes and flaws. She needs to successfully address the perceptions and criticisms that she’s entitled, disconnected, unlikable and shrill. She needs to relate. Needs to win over more women. And, for God’s sake, more men. And Southerners. And those in the Heartland. They all used to vote Democrat, and they can do so again. Like the man said... it’s the economy, stupid. Still is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton lol at the picture they used for that post 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:She lost states by a smaller margin than the number of people who voted but just left the President part of the ballot blank. I think it's fair to say that if she had done pretty much anything better she would've won. See, I think her poorly handled responses to the public concerning her emails/paid speeches/oscillating views are not to blame for her loss. What did Hillary in was that she was the kind of person who behaves that way and doesn't think it should even be an issue. She was out of touch, uninspiring and lacking any reason to run. An elite pr team wouldn't have been able to carry her into the white house unless they fabricated a new politician for her to play the role of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
lol compared unironically to Nixon
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:See, I think her poorly handled responses to the public concerning her emails/paid speeches/oscillating views are not to blame for her loss. I lolled at the story for Shattered for how her massive staff had writers block trying to create a reason for why Hillary wanted to be president
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
etalian posted:I lolled at the story for Shattered for how her massive staff had writers block trying to create a reason for why Hillary wanted to be president why do you love barriers so much?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
  If I had known that in 2017 the democrats would have turned into a Cult of The Most Enlightened Female Cosmic Saint-Buddha (pbuh), I would have started stockpiling ammo much earlier. edit : I guess now we can add "Heaven's Gate" to the list of organizations that can do self-criticism better than the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
lol remember when Hillary turned people inside out in the Vietnam War to help Nixon get reelected
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:See, I think her poorly handled responses to the public concerning her emails/paid speeches/oscillating views are not to blame for her loss. I don't really think this election was a foregone conclusion- Hillary could have won with a better-managed campaign because I don't think Donald Trump ran a particularly good campaign, just victory tends to gloss over problems. It was close enough that some different tactics could've won, despite Hillary's weakness as a candidate. I say this as someone who's a big bernie guy and hated the poo poo out of hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Creamed Cormp posted:
But doesn't the logo actually point to the right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of anyone who came out of 2016 election cycle in either party in a good shape to run in 2020 or be an interesting candidate in 2020 on the Democratic side, even if Hillary went another round (or Chelsea decided it was time to run, herself.) I'm saying this as someone how knows nothing about politics, though. That being said, I also know nothing about Nina Turner, but after remembering a small news things popping up about her during the Clinton/Bernie thing and looking her up just now I sort of wished she hadn't joined the Green Party and stayed with the Democrats. It seems like she was maybe in a good position post-2016 with some support due to her Sanders connection and the controversy over siding with him over Clinton to maybe be able to parley that into an interesting political career on the Democratic side in the next 4-12 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton i want to see them specify their definitions of "history" and "modern presidential history"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
hillary was polling very close to trump in the general long before the end of the primaries. it was always going to be close, all they had to do was nominate literally anyone but hillary or at the very least not make a big show of humiliating and making GBS threads on bernie's base during the general
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
like, I can't wrap my head around inserting Hillary into the Watchmen in Dr. Manhattan's place the character is omnipotent, yet not only allows himself to be used by elites but also doesn't prevent a massive terrorist attack because the ends justifies the means..... he does this because he's lost all connection to the human condition either the artist doesn't know a thing about the Watchmen and thought it was cool symbolism, or they did that willingly to satirize her
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:like, I can't wrap my head around inserting Hillary into the Watchmen in Dr. Manhattan's place https://twitter.com/futurecanon/status/857310541261541376
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:either the artist doesn't know a thing about the Watchmen and thought it was cool symbolism, or they did that willingly to satirize her What will be the more popular tweetable opinion? Because it's that one. edit: Is Alex Jones Rorshach?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:dude runs with "Change" as his slogan, does literally the same things every President in the modern era does, wonders why Americans voted for a reality TV idiot over a continuation of his policies To be fair the economy was hemorrhaging jobs right as he took office. Also the right fought against everything he did simply because it was him doing it, even when it was a reasonably good idea. Also he didn't do literally the same things as every other modern president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Amarcarts posted:To be fair the economy was hemorrhaging jobs right as he took office. Also the right fought against everything he did simply because it was him doing it, even when it was a reasonably good idea. Also he didn't do literally the same things as every other modern president. well, no, he wasn't identical but no one ever is but when you push through healthcare reform that favors insurance companies and then say "well, it was Romney's plan  " when it goes tits up, and when you run as the anti-war candidate and then expand wars to more nations, and when you expand the surveillance state with zero regard while also being extremely vicious towards whistleblowers..... you're probably a gigantic rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't really think this election was a foregone conclusion- Hillary could have won with a better-managed campaign because I don't think Donald Trump ran a particularly good campaign, just victory tends to gloss over problems. It was close enough that some different tactics could've won, despite Hillary's weakness as a candidate. The problems with Trump's campaign were laid bare repeatedly while the election was going on. TIME published entire issues on the subject. Just getting him to stop tweeting bullshit for a few weeks was a colossal effort by his staff. This actually probably led to lack of examination of Hillary's campaign. Trump's was such a clowncar that no one ever thought "hey, maybe look at Hillary's campaign instead of specualting about the email investigation for the 1,000th time". If anyone had suggested "hey maybe her campaign has problems too" they would have been laughed out of the room. Sure, there might be some inefficiency but how could it be bad enough to lose to Trump. The glaring red warning sign of "can't put away a whackjob old man from Vermont who looks like he's going to keel over at the podium until almost the last primary" of course, was ignored because superdelegates. You know, those things that don't exist in the Republican party or the general election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:well, no, he wasn't identical but no one ever is "If you like your wars, you can keep your wars!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:"If you like your wars, you can keep your wars!" "plus we'll give access to war to 20 million people who otherwise wouldn't have that access!'
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Krustic posted:So a comedy hack bootlicker is defending the first black president who is half white for taking money for "speeches" and using his skin color to deflect any criticism of this widely used non-ethical practice? I'm shocked. I'm dying to hear why it's unethical for a man who is now out of office to take money for speeches. It wasn't even unethical when Hillary did it - just wildly hypocritical. And I don't like Obama's policies and think Hillary Clinton is a completed retard, but in this regard they haven't done anything unethical just unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:I'm dying to hear why it's unethical for a man who is now out of office to take money for speeches. He put almost no resources going after Wall Street in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and now is collecting 400k paychecks from them. Nothing to see here, move along
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:The problems with Trump's campaign were laid bare repeatedly while the election was going on. TIME published entire issues on the subject. Just getting him to stop tweeting bullshit for a few weeks was a colossal effort by his staff. The irony of the superdelegates is that they exist in order to prevent the selection of a candidate who is going to lose in a humiliating fashion, a la McGovern and 1980!Carter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:He put almost no resources going after Wall Street in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and now is collecting 400k paychecks from them. So... 9 years later he takes money for speeches. Yeah I'm sure in 2009 and 2010 he had it all planned out to get $400,000k for some speeches, rather than the inevitable book deal which is for 150 times more money. Sounds exactly like his thought process. Here's the thing about flinging "unethcial" at trivialities - you trivialize it when it really appears. Trust me, I would LOVE to see public dirt on Obama, but this just doesn't measure up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:Too bad Hillary couldn't makeup a reason to vote for her! i like how woke twitter people with flower and fist and pin emojis arent even buying his line of crap lol identity politics is already starting to tear itself apart, which owns supremely hard
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:The irony of the superdelegates is that they exist in order to prevent the selection of a candidate who is going to lose in a humiliating fashion, a la McGovern and 1980!Carter. Problem was you didn't have any candidates like that. Well, maybe O'Malley or Webb, but everyone just lol'd at the run-of-the-mill Democrat and the centrist who'd worked in the Reagan administration and could work across the partisan divide in favor of the crypt keeper and the idea that running for president for 25 years because you're a lawyer with a vagina is going to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
So Obama let criminals who stole billions of dollars from the American people get off scot free, and then turned around and took a check for 400,000 dollars from them. How is that bad? How does that reveal what a loving sham Obama was and how broken our democracy is? How does that make you want to google "how to build a guillotine" and start shopping for tumbrils?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:i like how woke twitter people with flower and fist and pin emojis arent even buying his line of crap lol I think he thinks he's talking to Republicans and centrist independents, and doesn't realize that the only people watching late-night comedy are leftists who like being part of the choir being preached to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:i like how woke twitter people with flower and fist and pin emojis arent even buying his line of crap lol it's fascinating to watch and is actually the logical conclusion of that ideology if everyone is different and unique there's no overarching social glue to bind people together
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
the entire media machine is hooked up to a rebreather system that recirculates nothing but their own farts
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Krustic posted:So a comedy hack bootlicker is defending the first black president who is half white for taking money for "speeches" and using his skin color to deflect any criticism of this widely used non-ethical practice? I'm shocked. i mean i'm just saying it's possible you wouldn't be raising these criticisms if obama was white and denying you're a racist is like, the #1 sign you're a racist.................
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:the entire media machine is hooked up to a rebreather system that recirculates nothing but their own farts It's basically the equivalent to the Jackass fart mask sketch with Preston and Steve-O
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So Obama let criminals who stole billions of dollars from the American people get off scot free, and then turned around and took a check for 400,000 dollars from them. How is that bad? How does that reveal what a loving sham Obama was and how broken our democracy is? How does that make you want to google "how to build a guillotine" and start shopping for tumbrils? It makes me realize that the kind of person wigging out over this is the problem with our democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:i mean i'm just saying it's possible you wouldn't be raising these criticisms if obama was white Obama literally has more white ancestry than I do. Looks like you're the racist. I hope you're proud of your racism (actually I don't hope that, you should be ashamed!) Krustic fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:15
|
|