Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

272 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      110
    • Maybe
      73
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      110
    • Indifferent
      42


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The only thing Trumps "win" was a reaction to was what a god-awful candidate Hillary was in the alternative, tbh. He said nothing that resonated with a majority of voters and was deemed morally repugnant for his antics (and the media had to cover them--they were news). But was merely deemed to be the lesser of two evils by those who found Hillary's track-record of pay-to-play and changing positions on a dime and assorted scandals even more disqualifying then Trump being Trump. All we really learned this past election is that an unelectable candidate wins by running against another unelectable candidate. 

Well, maybe when you ignore the collusion of a hostile foreign nation that's the takeaway...

Spend your campaign calling your opponent a crook, then she has a massive leak of confidential information. It doesn't matter that there's nothing incriminating in those emails, it's that there's a leak - a "scandal" that somehow affirms this picture of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gustavos said:

Well, maybe when you ignore the collusion of a hostile foreign nation that's the takeaway...

Spend your campaign calling your opponent a crook, then she has a massive leak of confidential information. It doesn't matter that there's nothing incriminating in those emails, it's that there's a leak - a "scandal" that somehow affirms this picture of her.

Hillary is a crook, and had a million skeletons in her closet before the email scandal. The email scandal was as damaging as it was because it didn't happen in a vacuum--it played into  ideas people already had about her lack of transparency and trustworthiness and inability to answer basic questions about her conduct in public office that had been swirling for over 20 years. Yes...the Russians interfered. But the Democrats have to come to terms with the fact that that's not the reason they lost. They lost because they put up a candidate so bad she couldn't even claim the moral high ground against a man as depraved and as blatantly unfit for office as Donald Trump; with or without Russian interference, any candidate with a good name to run on should have smoked him by double-digits. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

They lost because they put up a candidate so bad she couldn't even claim the moral high ground against a man as depraved and as blatantly unfit for office as Donald Trump; with or without Russian interference, any candidate with a good name to run on should have smoked him by double-digits. 

If you actually believe that I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Look, I hate Trump as much as anyone in this thread, but do not kid yourself into thinking that just anyone should have beaten him easily. (For one thing, that way lies the path to losing to him again in 2020, should he still be in office then.) The working class white anger and feeling of being left behind he tapped into is very much real. It doesn't just go away just because you replace Clinton's name with Biden's on the ticket. Like maybe the e-mail thing is the difference and another Democrat might have eked out a win, but double-digits? Not a chance in hell.

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Hillary is a crook, and had a million skeletons in her closet before the email scandal. The email scandal was as damaging as it was because it didn't happen in a vacuum--it played into  ideas people already had about her lack of transparency and trustworthiness and inability to answer basic questions about her conduct in public office that had been swirling for over 20 years.

*that Fox News and its ilk had been pushing so hard for over 20 years. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clinton ran her campaign horribly

you think we'd have president trump right now if she went to PA/Wisconsin/Michigan during the last week? Trump went there instead, right around the time of the Comey emails. it's not rocket science, and the polls didn't reflect the effect of those visits, thats why the polling was so off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

 another Democrat might have eked out a win, but double-digits? Not a chance in hell.

...White working class anger gets you to ~40%. Hillary blew an 11 point lead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have zero source for those numbers so I'm not sure how you even want me to respond.

If "generic Democrat" were so much stronger than Clinton, then the Dems would have taken the Senate and probably the House while losing the presidency. How'd that go? Similarly, if Trump were horrendously weak as some people seem to like to think he wouldn't have won the primary in the first place, let alone been the first Republican to win PA/MI/WI in the lifetimes of some people on this forum. Don't fool yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton is one of the worst politicians I've seen and ran a terrible campaign, but I'm not sure if generic other democrat would do well either. It seems as though people are somewhat rightly pissed at the majority of the Democrats. They are addicted to their money in politics just as much as the Republicans have been, unfortunately. That said, I do think someone like Biden would have won, and would have had a better time reaching out to the necessary votes.

Trump is about as smart enough to portray himself as a faux populist by people who were really looking for change in those states. I mean, it's obvious that he's a fucking liar and doesn't give a shit about the struggles of the poor and middle class, but these were necessary as a majority of Americans did want change - for example, at least 70% of voters on the exit poll for the election said they were unhappy at the way that government was currently working, 60% saying that they thought the country was on 'the wrong track', and Clinton preaching incrementalism and that America is already great is not going to go over well. In those situations, someone who is telling you that he wants to blow it all up is appealing, but there was strategies available to the Democrats to completely shut this down.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yes, these numbers are apparent.  I think its funny people who kept saying "Who cares about Hillary now" continue to back her up and think that she just ran a bad campaign, allthewhile praising their confidence in her to be POTUS.  She was a horrible politician and was consistently involved in corruption.

She was wife to one of the only presidents to get so close to full impeachment

Her actions with her private e-mail server were called negligent by the FBI

She was involved in Benghazi.  I don't think it's fair to say it was her fault, there are others significantly more responsible, but she was involved nonetheless.  Not to mention her department was under her charge so all their actions are her responsibility.  

There are countless ties between her husband (and thereby her) to a sex offender.  While I don't think either clintons are involved with the sex offender's hobbies, it was very stupid to place herself anywhere near him, or accept any campaign donations.  It shows a serious lack of judgement.

Her boss during Watergate called her unethical.  It takes something very serious for someone to call you unethical in your career.  

And as everyone is fine with saying, she ran a horrible campaign.

 

I can't help but think the people praising Clinton are democrat fanboys who can't accept the DNC made the worst possible choice.  Her and Nancy Pelosi are the epitome of the Democrat party's failure as of late.

Trump would not have won against a normal candidate, his approval rating is way to low. Him winning over Clinton and then immediately receiving an approval rating under 40% (despite near 50/50 popular vote) makes it quite clear that Clinton would have received a very similar approval rating.  People made a choice during the election but both candidates were awful.  Republican fanboys love Trump and democrat fanboys love Clinton while the rest of us are anxious for some serious change from both parties.

Can we just agree that both choices were terrible and move on?

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to say now that the only people who seem to complain the most about Clinton are millennials, namely of the young white variety.

Some of Lushen's arguments apply to Trump 100 times over. Furthermore, his sources are front page magazine -- a tabloid -- and snopes actually did an investigation and concluded the opposite of the thing that he said! In fact he just said a shitload of things that concluded what I'm about to say.

Clinton's support among the majority of minority groups is significantly higher than her support among white people. She's also not nearly as corrupt as people say, even though her foreign policy was awful (and it was awful as SoS too). Voter suppression in key states was very real, and could have been the difference as well as campaigning in those states instead of trying to flip Nevada.

I'm not saying that I liked Clinton too much either -- and frankly neither side was going to throw a candidate that I liked -- but it's kind of ironic seeing that the people who have the most to say about Clinton are old republicans, a lot of millennial white middle class guys, and some millennial minorities. Because only now they're seeing the issues this country had, and they didn't have to live through it and constantly settle for the lesser of two evils. Growing up in the working class, I would love to be in a position where I would be fine with the system breaking down, but incremental progress (which is why Clinton stood for in the end, as well as the Democrats in general) is all we can stand for and a sacrifice our parents understand. You don't move to the west to become rich; you move for long term opportunity.

FYI Bernie lost completely fairly and his support among minorities was putrid. Any Republican would've been able to win against the crap the Democrats put out, since they had 30 years of shitting on Clinton for exaggerated or false premises (and yes, her and her husband have closely entwined and codependent political careers). The above post proves exaggerated and false premises.

I am willing to bet Clinton's administration would be around 50-55% right now (35 disapproval). Simply because she won the popular vote, she would not do things that constantly turn people off, she wouldn't deflect to Trump and wouldn't have weekly scandals. Trump is something special, but Hillary Clinton was unelectable not because she was a poor candidate but 30 years in the public eye as a woman is going to place tons and tons of baggage on you.

But that's the thing, Clinton is still irrelevant unless we are talking about things the DNC can learn from the election. The DNC should not elect Martin O'Malley FYI because he caused the Democrats to lose a gubernatorial election in a solid blue state.

Also Trump's 40% wasn't immediate. It took about 2-3 months to go from 50 to his current 38.

I do apologize for this argument getting into anecdotal territory but the numbers are in favor of minorities loving the Clintons. Republicans in theory have been full of shitty candidates, but they have a consistent base that falls in line and the Democrats have a more fickle and variable base (look at this thread, for instance; we are still arguing about how good or bad Clinton was as a candidate). The American centrist and left doesn't have a Fox News they can watch, since MSNBC/CNN really blow and they rely on satire that also spent quite a bit of time railing on both candidates. And some people probably didn't even vote because they can either afford not to or some other really nihilistic reason.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Some of Lushen's arguments apply to Trump 100 times over.

I'd like to clarify my argument was against both candidates.  I'm not claiming that Trump was a perfect candidate, I didn't like either of them.  My argument was that both Trump and Clinon suck.

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

front page magazine -- a tabloid --

I really just find articles that state the facts I know.  I google what I know and use the articles to support them.  I do not know anything about the front page magazine, I've never heard of it.  It was just the first thing that came up.  Everything I posted though is indisputable facts, however.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

snopes actually did an investigation and concluded the opposite of the thing that he said! In fact he just said a shitload of things that concluded what I'm about to say.

Actually what I had stated was that she was called unethical.  The snopes article was talking about the claim that she was fired for being called unethical.  She was called unethical, she just wasn't fired for it as her boss had no authority to fire her in that circumstance.  The snopes article was backing what I claimed, just because it said "false" at the top didn't mean it was against my argument.  

 

@Lord Raven What do you think of Nancy Pelosi?  Just curious on your views, because I've seen a lot of democrats defending her and a lot of others claiming she is responsible for their misfortunes.  Personally, I always thought she was inadequate.

 

I thought Bernie would have been the worst candidate.  Hillary and Trump were both bad candidates for sure, but Bernie had no business even being considered for presidency. He was never a very successful man from an economic standpoint (not capable of managing US money if he can't manage his own) or a political standpoint (his policies were often considered a fantasy utopia).  He also demonstrates a serious lack of drive considering he didn't get a stable job until he was 40 years old.  Most of his supporters also knew very little about him, even the DNC thought he was a big joke.

I'd love to think next election we'll return to the norm, but I'm seriously concerned where we're headed.  I mean, the three major candidates that were being considered were quite possibly some of the worst candidates we could have had.  It's a shame with Trump, because I actually truly believe a businessmen could do some good as president, just not this businessmen.  Clinton was the queen of corruption, and Bernie was...some dude who lives in a fantasy world.  I'm very concerned on whether this will happen again during the next presidency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Actually what I had stated was that she was called unethical.  The snopes article was talking about the claim that she was fired for being called unethical.  She was called unethical, she just wasn't fired for it as her boss had no authority to fire her in that circumstance.  The snopes article was backing what I claimed, just because it said "false" at the top didn't mean it was against my argument.  

Quote

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder

 Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary’s supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for “unethical, dishonest” conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn’t have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as “unethical” and “dishonest” is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the “facts” on which he based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Zeifman said he maintained a transcribed diary during the impeachment proceedings, which he drew up upon two decades later in authoring the 1998 book Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot. That book makes it clear that Zeifman did not like (personally and professionally) a good many of the people he worked with during the Watergate investigation; in particular, he continually butted heads over issues of procedures and legal approaches with his boss, Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, and Hillary’s supervisor, Impeachment Inquiry Special Counsel John Doar. Zeifman accused both Rodino and Doar (as well as Hillary Rodham and others), without evidence, of supposedly dragging their feet on recommending impeachment and “tanking” the investigation of President Nixon’s wrongdoings, for reasons ranging from bribes offered by the Nixon White House to help with re-election bids, to a desire to enhance the Democrats’ chances of winning the 1976 presidential election by keeping a discredited Nixon in office until the end of his term, to a plot to keep Richard Nixon from defending himself by bringing up past instances of presidential abuses of power (which would include dirt on the Kennedys).

Is what I read in the article. Basically, he called plenty of people corrupt and inethical for no particular reason.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I thought Bernie would have been the worst candidate.  Hillary and Trump were both bad candidates for sure, but Bernie had no business even being considered for presidency. He was never a very successful man from an economic standpoint (not capable of managing US money if he can't manage his own) or a political standpoint (his policies were often considered a fantasy utopia).  He also demonstrates a serious lack of drive considering he didn't get a stable job until he was 40 years old.  Most of his supporters also knew very little about him, even the DNC thought he was a big joke.

Bernie was also going to get destroyed in the general election.

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/11/15/newsweek-posts-gop-oppo-research-on-bernie-sander/

His policies were not backed up by fact at all. It's really quite fascinating. I voted for him, but only because it would drag Clinton further left rather than thinking he would win, because I knew he wouldn't win; minorities take up too much of the Democratic vote, and he didn't resonate with them at all. You are correct here.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I'd love to think next election we'll return to the norm, but I'm seriously concerned where we're headed.  I mean, the three major candidates that were being considered were quite possibly some of the worst candidates we could have had.  It's a shame with Trump, because I actually truly believe a businessmen could do some good as president, just not this businessmen.  Clinton was the queen of corruption, and Bernie was...some dude who lives in a fantasy world.  I'm very concerned on whether this will happen again during the next presidency. 

I would back Mark Cuban because he knows what's up.

I still maintain Clinton's "corruption" is just her being milquetoast about everything and shifting her policies with the polls. Her policy shifts over the years were a natural evolution with the whole democratic party, and she was still pro-universal healthcare which has been a very large issue for decades. All reports about Epstein declare his connection to Bill, and not Hillary, Clinton; at least, the ones I've read. The ones that drag Hillary Clinton into it are often fox news and tabloid types.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065

Politifact verifies this.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I would back Mark Cuban because he knows what's up.

I still maintain Clinton's "corruption" is just her being milquetoast about everything and shifting her policies with the polls. Her policy shifts over the years were a natural evolution with the whole democratic party, and she was still pro-universal healthcare which has been a very large issue for decades. All reports about Epstein declare his connection to Bill, and not Hillary, Clinton; at least, the ones I've read. The ones that drag Hillary Clinton into it are often fox news and tabloid types.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065

Politifact verifies this.

True dat, there's even an SNL skit of her blatantly acknowledging she changed her opinion on gay rights (like the real Clinton).  I'm glad we can agree Bernie is a downright fool.  My favorite moment during the election was watching his supports stumble around trying to make sense of the things he says.  

Dunno about Mark Cuban.  The issue is the third party candidates don't stand a chance and we don't get much of a say in our primaries.  It's too early to look at candidates, because we don't know who our 'real' options are going to be.  In fact, Trump had received the highest number of GOP votes in history.  There were actually quite a few decent republican candidates that should have won, but we never got a chance to vote for them.  Not really.  I'm not saying any of them would have been rockstars, but I thought Ben Carson, Rubio, and Kasich would have been fairly routine.  Ben Carson would have been a bit of an oddball, but I think he could have done a decent job.  Just no Ted Cruz, man is a weasel.  Honestly I would have openly supported Hillary if he was the Republican nominee.  God damn I got so tired of listening to him talk.

Just concerned the next election will be 2016 all over again.  But we'll have to wait and see.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30-7-2017 at 2:02 AM, Shoblongoo said:

The only thing Trumps "win" was a reaction to was what a god-awful candidate Hillary was in the alternative, tbh. He said nothing that resonated with a majority of voters and was deemed morally repugnant for his antics (and the media had to cover them--they were news). But was merely deemed to be the lesser of two evils by those who found Hillary's track-record of pay-to-play and changing positions on a dime and assorted scandals even more disqualifying then Trump being Trump. All we really learned this past election is that an unelectable candidate wins by running against another unelectable candidate. 

I think those that considered Trump the lesser of two evils are pretty much objectively wrong on that front. There was never anything that suggested Trump could run a country while Clinton at least held several offices with a competence that ranges somewhere from average to below average. In that she already wins out on Trump.

The biggest weaknesses of Clinton was that she lied and that she may have been corrupt but both of those things were present in Trump to an even higher degree. If Trump has no experience, zero competence, nothing to point to the existence of good faith and all of Clinton's weaknesses then how can he be the lesser evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think those that considered Trump the lesser of two evils are pretty much objectively wrong on that front. There was never anything that suggested Trump could run a country while Clinton at least held several offices with a competence that ranges somewhere from average to below average. In that she already wins out on Trump.

Her competence is significantly below average.  Holding several offices means jack shit when you haven't done a good job with them.  Bad experience is not a good thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-architect-of-failure/article/2605268

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Her competence is significantly below average.  Holding several offices means jack shit when you haven't done a good job with them.  Bad experience is not a good thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-architect-of-failure/article/2605268

Not to sound like somebody who is running for office, but I'm saying it anyway. There is no such thing as "bad" experience in the field of civil service. Politicians don't envy Clinton's years of service for the sake of seniority, they envy the chance to have seen the things she's seen and spoken to all the people she had in her life. You don't learn how the world works by sitting at home and watching the news. That's why Trump abandoned his campaign promises the day after he spoke with Obama.

A good politician can make mistakes and learn from them. A bad politician has every opportunity to know something won't work before they try it anyway. What the American public fail to understand is It's not just a president we elect, it's the best and brightest they know to advise them on the right calls to make every day. That's why third party candidates can't get the job done. They have no experience serving the public where it matters, and know absolutely nobody in their line of work who can teach them how the world works. Trump has a team of lawyers, that's it. He filled every position with the same swamp he said he would drain, because they were willing to take the job. Some aren't always willing to be a lap dog though, hence the firings.

Anybody that thinks Hillary being president would still result in us talking about the president's Muslim ban, or how hundreds of government positions are still vacant, or how we're going to pay for a border wall is just an internet troll. "BUT HER EMAILS" isn't even being thrown about since nobody cares about that in the first place. Does anybody believe that trump supporters care about him using private email servers? That wouldn't even make the "daily Trump news" cycle if we got confirmation, because he does and says so much more heinous things.

Edited by Gustavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Clinton's accomplishments led to the death of Osama and her pressure on Iran lead to the Iran deal

I think the majority of politicians have a history of failure (which is natural because that's how compromise works!) but Clinton does have successes. Her foreign policy has led to plenty of issues but she has had success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Also Clinton's accomplishments led to the death of Osama and her pressure on Iran lead to the Iran deal

What I think of when Hillary credits herself with the death of Osama Bin Laden...

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fuck are you talking about? She was Secretary of State during the raid on Aboddabad.. ignoring the fact that a lot of decisions are more or less team decisions. I also didn't state she single handedly made the decision or scoped it out lol, it was part of her career in her four years as Secretary of State.

I'm also not sure why you're willing to shit on Clinton's shoddy memory here whilst at the same time defending Trump Jr.'s shoddy memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to relitigate the case against Hillary. But I think it's as foolish to disregard her reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of the right-wing echo chamber as it is to disregard Trump's reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of liberal media. Not do I think it's particularly helpful to excuse her conduct as "...well that's just how politicians act; you can say the same about any of them. She did some good things too." That's the kind of boundless cynicism that got Trump elected with every figure in the political establishment warning: this man is a national embarasment. Do not give him power, as though every figure in the political establishment holding this opinion of him was a GOOD thing. Take the lesson of 2016 to heart and do it right next time--Don't put up a candidate with a reputation for dishonesty and corruption that has to be excused or explained away. Then just expect progressives to swallow it, because--hey--it's her or the racist, sexist millionaire-coddler with the (R) next to his name.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I think it's as foolish to disregard her reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of the right-wing echo chamber as it is to disregard Trump's reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of liberal media

Are you joking? One is full of exaggeration (corruption) and bullshit/conspiracy (including the Seth Rich conspiracy and the Clinton murder trail) and the other is very well documented.

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

nor do I think it's particularly helpful to excuse her conduct as "...well that's just how politicians act."

I did not do this. A public servant is beholden to their constituents, as Clinton properly was. The issue was her lack of public charisma, which is definitely a point against her. Hawkish tendencies in foreign policy is another point against her. But a public servant adapting their "viewpoints" and policies to their constituents and able to do research on those policies is how a politician is meant to act. If we're comparing to Trump again, then Trump has no consistency in viewpoints and doesn't care for constituents as was shown by his constant flip flopping during the campaign and after victory. She legit acts like how a career public servant should act, for better or for worse.

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Take the lesson of 2016 to heart and do it right next time--Don't put up a candidate with a reputation for dishonesty and corruption that has to be excused or explained away. And then just expect progressives to swallow it, because--hey--it's her or the racist, sexist guy with the (R) next to his name. When Democrats nominate a candidate that genuinely excites the progressive base--They Win. 

If I'm going to be honest, yes, I should expect progressives to swallow it. The ones with the most care about all of these issues with Clinton -- from my personal experience -- were the ones that ended up caring the least now and cared the least around a year ago. Yes, this is not universal, since there are people in this thread that care now and cared then. You also can't blame the Democrats for trying to run her, considering she was the clear front runner in mid-late 2015 that decreased against Bernie Sanders but was still overall favorable among Democrats.

It was pretty obvious she was willing to make concessions when Bernie threatened her campaign. That is generally the purpose of the primaries -- to vote with your gut so the final candidate can come out with much more moderation between the candidates. This is how a democracy is meant to work, and Trump clearly didn't give two shits about the process.

I don't support Clinton again in 2020 nor do I support a Clinton-like candidate because of the lack of charisma, but I believe that people should be willing to make concessions whenever necessary. That kind of bickering was the death of the Democratic Party whereas the Republican Party can get their voters in line. That's why I, once again, believe that the demographic that hates Clinton a lot, for the most part, is the one unwilling to make concessions while still remaining on the center or left-of-center, most likely because they aren't used to having to make concessions to that extent.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would remind you that Republican pundits and right wing media spent the past eight (8) years leveling every charge of corruption and scandal in the books against Obama, in an attempt to bring his reputation down to the level of a Trump or a Clinton. (with more than just a light twinge of racial overtures)

 …it was said he was born in Kenya and falsified an American birth certificate.

…it was said that his closest mentors and role models were a pastor who preached “God DAMN America! That’s in the Bible!” and a domestic terrorist responsible for bombing police stations.

…it was said he was a closet homosexual with a gay lover in Chicago.

… it was said he ran a crooked IRS that targeted his political opponents for audits.

…it was said he ran a crooked justice department that prioritized prosecuting white’s over non-whites, and refused to prosecute Democrats.

…it was said he ran a crooked EPA and energy department, using “green energy projects” to give tax payer money to his friends and donors.

…it was said he ran a crooked ATF that illegally sold guns to Mexican drug gangs.

Obama left office with a 59% approval rating and the adoration of the general public in spite of them, and has become even more popular in his post-presidency in juxtaposition against his successor.

 

By all accounts, had he been eligible to run for a 3rd term, he would have beaten both Hillary in a primary challenge and Trump in a general election with upmost ease.

The dirt never stuck to Obama (not with anyone beyond the core right-wing audience that was willing to believe any bad thing said about the guy) because he didn’t have a pre-existing reputation for gutter politics and scandals—he was an untarnished, aspirational figure.

…whereas with Hillary…fake scandals and things that right wing media was just out-right making up with no basis in fact notwithstanding…

…you have the Whitewater Investigations

…you have the Bimbo Eruptions

…you have the mysterious disappearance of Clinton Foundation charitable funds for earthquake relief in Haiti

…you have the mixing of public and private business at the State Department under Clinton’s tenure, with Clinton in the capacity of her office soliciting donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign nationals + foreign nationals who donated to the Clinton Foundation receiving  special access to the state Department.

…you have positions reversed for seemingly no other reason than political expediency, on everything from criminal justice reform to living wage laws to Iraq, with plastic indignation at the suggestion that her position has changed. And insistence that it’s just another “right-wing smear” to suggest her stance on say—mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and locking up urban “super predators” during her husband’s presidency is just slightly off-kilter from her sudden professions of love and solidarity with BLM.   

…you have the matter of a private server blown up into a “scandal”—whatever the nature of her underlying conduct—by the sheer volume of false statements Hillary put out that she had to later go back and correct when the true facts were disclosed,  i.e.: I had this server, but I only used it for private correspondence.  Okay…yes…I used it for private correspondence and state department matters, but I never used if for classified information. Okay…yes…I used it for classified information, but I never used it for anything that was marked classified at the time and I’ve fully cooperated in disclosing all emails to investigators; they will attest that this is correct. Okay…yes…I deleted several thousand emails and didn’t turn them over to investigators…but that was just talk about my daughter’s birthday party and silly, unrelated things. Nothing relevant to the investigation. Okay…yes…some of the deleted emails I failed to turn over contained information relevant to the investigation, but

 

 (It’s the same stupid shit Trump is doing with the Russia investigation right now; if there’s no underlying misconduct then there is no need for the lies and the cover-up. You put all your cards on the table and get ahead of the story; you don’t erode your credibility by putting out false statement after false statement that is going to inevitably be proven false with the slow-drip from the investigation)

…And that wasn’t shit that right-wing media made up. That happened.

Because that happened, Hillary did not have the reputation for honesty and good character to rise above the fake shit, the way Obama did.

There’s an old saying: shit sticks to a pig.

And even without the fake scandals, there were a fair number of voters who would not have voted for Hillary under any circumstance purely because of the things she’s actually said and done.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t say: “Donald Trump is the worst. There’s never been a candidate this rude and crude. There’s never been a candidate who knows this little about government or public policy. There’s never been a candidate this dirty in his business dealings. This is the worst candidate ever to be nominated for president of the United States—he shouldn’t even be anywhere near the fucking thing.”

Then also say: “But the candidate that lost to him was a good candidate! It was just the right-wing smear machine. It was just conspiracy theories and fake scandals. It was just Russian interference. Hillary wasn’t a bad nominee.”  

No…that’s not how it works…
 
A moment of introspection is needed here. Democrats have to take ownership of the candidate they put up.

Because Trump is a skunk. And when you get into a shit-fight with a skunk, the skunk wins.

They will lose again in 2020 if they don’t put up an aspirational figure who can rise above Trump’s gutter politics, instead of going tit-for-tat on who has the less disqualifying lies and scandals.    

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

What the fuck are you talking about? She was Secretary of State during the raid on Aboddabad.. ignoring the fact that a lot of decisions are more or less team decisions. I also didn't state she single handedly made the decision or scoped it out lol, it was part of her career in her four years as Secretary of State.

I'm also not sure why you're willing to shit on Clinton's shoddy memory here whilst at the same time defending Trump Jr.'s shoddy memory.

14 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

<snip>

So...you can't defend Clinton without criticizing Trump who has nothing to do with my argument that Clinton would have been a horrible candidate?  As I've said multiple times, I'm not defending Trump, I would have preferred Rubio, Carson, and Kasich.  If the democrats had a decent (not good, just decent) presidential candidate I may have voted democrat this year.  They just didn't, which is what I was saying.  Just because we have a bad president doesn't mean we could have had a good one if Hillary was in office.  As other have said, who knows what she would have done, she changes her views on things to whatever gets her elected.  

As for her and the raid, is everyone that was in the gov't at the time of the raid responsible for Osama's death?  I hate it when Obama and Clinton get credit or the raid, someone else found the targets location, someone else organized the raid, someone else carried out the raid.  Obama and Clinton...what?  Approved it?  Who the fuck wouldn't?  Why do they get more praise then our military, whoever organized it (I don't even know who that was), and our intelligence community?  Besides, Obama's strategy on Al Qaeda is pretty much a continuation on Bush.  

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/whose-terrorism-policies-get-credit-bush-or-obama-054247

People like to give credit to politicians for things like this, the economy, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

So...you can't defend Clinton without criticizing Trump

If at any point you think I am trying to defend Clinton, you have completely misunderstood my last post

I will say this on the raid though. From whats been reported; Hillary and Biden were both in  the room with Obama when the raid went down and giving him their advice on the matter.

Hillary advised that this was their best chance to capture or kill Osama, that their plan was sound, and that they could execute it. She recommended that Obama order Seal Team 6 to conduct the raid.

Biden advised that the risk of civilian casualties was high, that the raid could inflame relations with the Pakistanis, and that the possibility of killing or capturing Osama wasn't worth the potential fallout. He recommended that the president order Seal Team 6 to stand down and abort the mission.

The raid was carried out and Osama was killed because Obama sided with Hillary over Biden. Make of that what you will. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...