Print

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

[Hanslanda]

...So if the Kochs made a third party, would that still be good for American democracy? I'm leaning yes.

Yeah. We need at least one more viable party to start breaking the stranglehold this bipartisan system has on our political landscape.

[Doomblade187]

Vote Hillary Clinton (R) 2020

Nah, it'd be (C) for the almighty people that rule our society. The choice has never been less clear!

Related note, I don't quite understand the hate that Hillary has received over the past two-three years. Did she actually do anything, other than be a Clinton and run for president as a woman? I know general accusations of corruption and being a corporate shill (hence my above joek) but I don't recall anything specific. Benghazi maybe?

[SaberToothTiger]

My guess is that she's utterly bland. I don't know of anything she did, nothing extraordinarily heinous or overwhelmingly positive. She simply never did, said or advocated anything that riled me up. She was a carte blanche, one which was almost entirely empty except for some unimportant corruption accusations. If she actually did anything, I didn't hear of it.

She also served as a hate sink for the non-offensive, soft spoken, uninspiring and cynical centrist politics.

[Trekkin]

Related note, I don't quite understand the hate that Hillary has received over the past two-three years. Did she actually do anything, other than be a Clinton and run for president as a woman? I know general accusations of corruption and being a corporate shill (hence my above joek) but I don't recall anything specific. Benghazi maybe?

It's not all caused by one thing. Trump voters hate her because if she wouldn't have been worse than Trump, they were all played for fools in the general election, so every time Trump is as cruel and stupid as the rest of us knew he would be, they go make a lot of noise about how, essentially, they made a smart choice and flyover country matters too so suck it liberals.

On the Democratic side, there's still a lot of resentment over the Clinton campaign essentially buying the DNC, still managing to lose to Trump of all people in the general election, and refusing to acknowledge her role in that or her increasing irrelevance to the party as it's moved left away from her corporate centrism. She's like Pelosi and Schumer in that sense, except she can't actually do anything so there's even less reason to listen to her.

[EnigmaticHat]

Re: Koch brothers, let's not forget that their influence is one of the reasons the RNC was so fucked to begin with.  If they do make good on their threat to back democrats I hope the majority of democratic candidates turn them down.  Cause really, its like accepting money from a gangster.  Regardless of what you say when you take it, you owe them now.  The Koch brothers can just say "hey, if you don't do this thing that we want, next election we'll donate a disproportionate amount of money to your opponent because you backstabbed us."

I assume that's why they'd donate to democrats specifically in hotly contested districts.  If they give to a democrat in an area that's mostly blue leaning they can just be like, "yeah but you always donate to my opponents, go fuck yourself."

[Max™]

I read all the "44d" stuff as "4d4" like dag yo, your damage dice suck, need to put a multiplier on that roll or some flat bonuses.

When you lose.

I tell ya, the last time I played that against Loud Whispers I ended up with so many shirts on my back...

The trick is to stack hats because you always have room to stack more hats

LITERALLY A HAT ON A HAT

So yeah, we hate Clinton because she was so bland and lizardlike that she lost to a big fat orange mook of a lizard despite being absurdly qualified for the position, so much so that it is still baffling that anyone so ready to step into the executive role could lose to someone so utterly unqualified and unprepared that they're still confused about basic shit two years later.

Like, we hate Dumpsack more than her, but goddamn there is no excuse for losing an election to that orange piece of shit, and one can only hope that every time someone chimes in with "maybe Hillary should run!" in the future they get bricked in the face immediately.

[Frumple]

Take the time to varyingly literally shoot a russian before bricking, maybe. Burn an effigy of the electoral college for overriding the popular vote in favor of a republican fuckwit again, too. Go find a branch of fox and co. to metaphorically set on fire, I'unno. Buncha' stuff to do before bricking someone, really.

[Trekkin]

we hate Clinton because she was so bland and lizardlike

You forgot arrogant, noncommital and wonkish. She never actually promised anything concrete beyond that we'd have a beyond-overqualified first woman President and that would in some unspecified way be good.

[Rolan7]

She had a strong and well-defined platform of real change, that could actually have happened.  It just wasn't outlandish enough compared to her two opponents.  Who I would describe as "wonkish", based on how the word sounds.  Unrealistic wankers?

As for arrogance, she presumed victory because of extensive polling and because her opponent was so mired in scandal that his victory was completely unprecedented.  Frankly, I *do* think she only appeared arrogant in that situation because she was a confident woman.

Appearance is what mattered, though, and I won't support her in another primary.  At this point, respect for the office is so far in the shitter that we might as well throw in with the "fuck reality, real change NAOW" crowd.  It doesn't retroactively make them right, but pragmaticism means doing the optimal thing - no matter how insufferable it'll make certain people.
(talking about my brother, to clarify)

[redwallzyl]

I actually attended rallies for both Sanders and Clinton and Clinton most certainly had things she was advocating for. It is disingenuous to say she was totally status quo.

[SaberToothTiger]

I didn't say she was for the status quo. I literally said that she appeared blank, not that she was some sort of cackling arch-conservative bent on eradicating change forever. I believe that she didn't manage to make just about half of the country give a fuck. Or maybe the "fuck reality, real change NAOW" crowd wanted someone and something that could be believed. No matter how reasonable Clinton's proposals were, they were less believable than the outlandish proposals offered by the House of Orange. I'd call that a huge fucking failure, but what do I know, I am merely a pleb who has no idea about anything and needs to be told what to think.

After 8 years of Obama doing a precious little to actually end plutocracy, the war machine, expanding the PATRIOT Act, actually doing anything about Putin except sending strongly worded letters, another 4 years of little change probably wasn't quite what the people wanted.

[Descan]

Obama was an internal president. That's where he was comfortable. Unfortunately, his domestic policy was watered down or just flat-out blocked at every turn by the Republican congress, and so he pivoted to international, to get SOMETHING done.

And, well, that wasn't his strength.

[sluissa]

I didn't say she was for the status quo. I literally said that she appeared blank, not that she was some sort of cackling arch-conservative bent on eradicating change forever. I believe that she didn't manage to make just about half of the country give a fuck. Or maybe the "fuck reality, real change NAOW" crowd wanted someone and something that could be believed. No matter how reasonable Clinton's proposals were, they were less believable than the outlandish proposals offered by the House of Orange. I'd call that a huge fucking failure, but what do I know, I am merely a pleb who has no idea about anything and needs to be told what to think.

After 8 years of Obama doing a precious little to actually end plutocracy, the war machine, expanding the PATRIOT Act, actually doing anything about Putin except sending strongly worded letters, another 4 years of little change probably wasn't quite what the people wanted.

This is honestly a really good argument. 2008 Primary season Clinton and Obama were basically two brands of the same flavor soda. Most democrat voters would have been fine with either of them whether they preferred one over another. Clinton further associated herself with Obama as Sec. of State. By the middle of Obama's second term he was becoming quite unpopular in general, even among certain sets of democrats. ACA was starting to crumble under congressional pressure. Drone strikes were still a thing. The middle east was flaring up and the Snowden documents were released. All this combined to eat away at what a lot of democrats wanted out of Obama. I'm not saying I blame him specifically for all those things, but it was dumped in his lap either way and he had to deal with it, for better or worse. A lot of the people feeling disenfranchised with Obama passed on those associations to Clinton, as she was seen largely as more of the same, but this time with a fraction of the charisma to back it up.

[EnigmaticHat]

People hated Hilary because the Russians hacked our elections.  And because Fox News spent 4 years demonizing her.

Maybe in an alternate world where those things didn’t happen there would have been other reasons.  But, you know, 3 million votes.  Sure, against Trump.  But does anyone seriously think she would have done worse against Cruz?

[smjjames]

And she supposedly had a legion of staff parsing and analyzing every word that she could say and somehow 'basket of deplorables' missed the filter.

I don't know how much worse she'd have done under Cruz, but at least Cruz wouldn't have alienated so many people and it'd probably end up with Cruz winning the popular vote. She still would have had to fight against the historical pendulum which swings back to the other party after two terms.

A Clinton-Cruz fight wouldn't have been so tense and hostile as actual 2016 was.