Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UXLZ]

I meant that she stepped aside for Obama and was essentially guaranteed the presidency when he came out of office.

[Starver]

I meant that she stepped aside for Obama and was essentially guaranteed the presidency when he came out of office.

Because the Obama administration has had a free run to implement everything it has wanted, over the last eight years, unhindered by the opposing camp, right?

[misko27]

I meant that she stepped aside for Obama and was essentially guaranteed the presidency when he came out of office.

You appear to be forgetting about a couple of things. First, the Party of Opposition, commonly referred to the as "GOP". Secondly, you seem to take for granted Obama's re-election in 2012 in a way I find quite odd. Thirdly: Can you name a single Democratic politician who could have made a serious bid for President in 2016, but did not? I'm not asking whether they exist, but whether you personally can name any at all. No points for naming a particular incumbent who decided not to run. Fourth: Hillary Clinton very, very fiercely contested the 2008 election for as long as she found it possible, and didn't step aside by any means. Fifth: Why do you talk as if you are pronouncing the absolute, unassailable truth? It's very annoying.

[smirk]

She definitely didn't just "step aside for Obama"; if I recall correctly she fought hard right to the end and got pretty nasty at points. Unless you mean "step aside" as simply conceding the nomination when he won, which is, yeah. How it works.

And she's guaranteed the presidency only inasmuch as any Dem nominee would've been, by virtue of the Republican party running a complete shit-show for the last 8 years.

[Neonivek]

I wonder if this must be the worst election in US history.

Then again... I am sure there must be some that can contend with that.

Then THEN again... platforms of ignorance, hate, patriotism, and fear mongering aren't anything new to US elections. One could say Trump is just more... overt.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, there's definitely been worse. 1968, 1912, 1824, and of course 1860.

[Neonivek]

Oh, there's definitely been worse. 1968, 1912, 1824, and of course 1860.

You know "Worse" doesn't necessarily mean a bad candidate wins or the results of the election was bad. I mean the election itself

Since, I assume, the one Taft won is in there. Yet I don't remember his election being particularly bad... so much that he was considered a highly ineffective president.

[Frumple]

Yeah, '68 was definitely worse. This'un'll probably end up in the top three or four in living memory, though. Fuck off Thanks, GOP. Secondary accolades go to our media, may their CEOs all catch incurable syphilis.

And if you're talking '12, there, neo, do remember that one of the candidates actually caught a bullet in that one. This one's been bad but murder attempts haven't gotten that far.

[UXLZ]

Okay, I worded that pretty badly and let my own personal opinions leak in. What I meant is that the Democratic Party (or people within that party) promised her their nomination for presidency.

[Neonivek]

I know that a lot of people want to shut WikiLeaks down.

But Goodness is it hard for me to side with anyone when frankly... well...

A Whistleblower typically is only a villain... to the villain and their victims.

[smjjames]

Oh, there's definitely been worse. 1968, 1912, 1824, and of course 1860.

1912? But Teddy Roosevelt.....

Wikileaks are saying that now the IRS has been added to the list of agencies investigating the Clinton Foundation.

I'm calling BS, also, the IRS should be investigating Trump

[Neonivek]

Who says the IRS isn't investigating Trump?

Trump is currently part of well over 100 cases...

Trump basically has encased himself in a controversy shell, so densely packed with controversy that it deflects lesser controversies.

It is why the "Trump is sexist" controversy actually made Hillary look more like a Strawman Feminist.

[Frumple]

Near as I can tell they're trying to blow back up something that's been public knowledge since at least july, if the news is accurate at all. It seeming to be pushed by wikileaks is unfortunately a mark against the credibility, these days. News in general can't seem to figure out if irs are or aren't, at the moment. Some of them seem to be reporting both, somehow.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, there's definitely been worse. 1968, 1912, 1824, and of course 1860.

You know "Worse" doesn't necessarily mean a bad candidate wins or the results of the election was bad. I mean the election itself

That's what I'm talking about.

1968: Vietnam, Party Divisions, Race Riots, Utter Clusterfuck
1912: 4-way between a functional socialist, an actual socialist, an actual communist, and a peace candidate who launched the US into WWI months later
1824: The infamous corrupt bargain, medicine hadn't been invented yet, Andrew Jackson was still around occasionally murdering people.
1860: Triggered this little bit of unrest you might have heard of called the American Civil War.

[smjjames]

Okay, I worded that pretty badly and let my own personal opinions leak in. What I meant is that the Democratic Party (or people within that party) promised her their nomination for presidency.

Source(s) on that?

She had been giving signals that she wanted to run again for a long time though (though she played hard to get for a bit), and the star power of the Clintons as a political family is up there with the Kennedys, Bushes and Reagan. Heck, if a Reagan clone ran for president, you'd be seeing a similar reaction from the Republicans.

Though, as an Australian, half of those names are probably completely foriegn to you UXLZ, which is okay. I don't know of any Australian politicians or families with similar kind of political weight.