Print

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

[Dunamisdeos]

I feel like she was perceived as corrupt (noone is talking about the specific legal definition of corrupt here, cmon folks) because of the nigh-constant accusations of shady everything since like, 1990.

Almost all of those are situations with Bill and Hillary standing nearby and making very surprised faces while everyone near them goes down in flames for actual legal corruption but these are things they had nothing to do with and didn't even know about, at all, why does this keep happening near us we have no idea.

I heard democrats say things like "the most corrupt Presidency since Nixon" in regards to what they expected from her while the election was on.

Cross-post, but bleh.

War on Poverty won, go home people.

Alternatively, War on Poverty won; War on The Poor continues.

It is important to remember that a lot of these benefits come from people who would be making less if they worked 40 at their current job, and that they are at their current job because there is not a better option physically available. Additionally, it's even more important to note that unemployment is through the floor, which indicates that alot of these people are using that extra time to improve their position to the point where they can get off welfare.

Note that they are drawing their numbers from "people on welfare" and not "ratio to welfare/no welfare in america*. I don't subscribe to the "White House likes to hurt poor people for no reason" line, but I do think this is indicative of Trump's utter inability to understand a life outside of extreme opulence.

[PTTG??]

God damn, it's like talking to Trump. "I've Heard" "All those situations."

Grow up and do some research if you want to be taken seriously. If you have specific actual issues with Hillary, I'm more than happy to listen, but you have to actually have a substantial complaint.

[misko27]

Democrats said a lot of things. There was a minor alliance between radical Berniecrats and Trumpers during the primaries. A lot of vocal people were convinced that what was needed was something that would "shake up the establishment, at any cost". So convinced they were that Clinton was the real enemy, that she had been coronated by The Powers That Be and would steal the election right from under us.

All forgotten, now, in this new age of fire.

[Dunamisdeos]

God damn, it's like talking to Trump. "I've Heard" "All those situations."

Grow up and do some research if you want to be taken seriously. If you have specific actual issues with Hillary, I'm more than happy to listen, but you have to actually have a substantial complaint.

That's cool man, I'll just do a google search for you then, since you're apparently going to be as offensively obtuse as you know how to be until I type it out for you.

Here's a breakdown of things that make people uncomfortable about Hillary and how they affected her run whether they were true, fabricated, or potentially legitimate. I even went and found you a generally non-right-leaning source so as not to prickle your skivvies.

If you spend more than 10 seconds researching opposing views that make you uncomfortable (heavens to betsy) you can find other sites that detail more that isn't in this article. And by the way, it's a fat lot "like talking to Trump" when you pretend to be utterly ignorant of things that have been discussed in this very thread for years now in the hopes of baiting someone into a fight.

[Hanslanda]

To be fair, I have no intention of providing sources for my allegations, and I don't care particularly if you disagree. It was simply a basic explanation of my opinionated view of the 2016 election based on hearsay and conjecture. I'm like, the least informed person here, so you're really reaching for low-hanging fruit if you expect me to have a vast and complicated reasoning behind my statements. You're absolutely safe in disregarding my statements, because I don't know shit mate. I'm dumbass Joe Blow saying, "I think we should bring back da steel jerbs."


(Except I'm a moderate liberal with libertarian and Social Democrat tendencies)

[Teneb]

To provide a non-US perspective, outside of the country Hillary was also perceived as someone who would continue corporate imperialism, her claims during the election about acts of war causing fears of new Iraq-like invasions, and so on. If her opponent was anyone but Trump, she'd have been looking way worse, too.

[Karnewarrior]

Having Grandparents who voted Trump, I can also tell you that a large part of the debate was over Abortion. The Religious really, really hone in on that, even more than Homosexuality or the other stereotyppes associated with them.

Not surprising, I imagine if I thought abortion was baby murder I'd be pretty goddamn concerned about it. I do recall disliking Hillary's stance on Abortion during one debate, but I forget what it was now and it didn't convince me that Donald "Literally a threat to Humanity" Trump was the better choice.

[redwallzyl]

The funny thing is that it's tactfully a quite small group that is for a total ban.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
The vast majority of people have a more nuanced opinion. But then everything gets turned into an all of nothing by politicians.

[PTTG??]

God damn, it's like talking to Trump. "I've Heard" "All those situations."

Grow up and do some research if you want to be taken seriously. If you have specific actual issues with Hillary, I'm more than happy to listen, but you have to actually have a substantial complaint.

Angrily denying that people were upset about the idea of Hillary winning does not mitigate the fact that people were upset about the idea of Hillary winning, and not all of them voted for Trump. If your response to those people is "unless you can point to something specific then you don't get to be taken seriously," well, I guess you don't have to look very far for the mindset that led to Trump winning.

The key isn't that Hillary did explicit acts of known corruption. The key is that she spent decades gaining wealth in politics, and being associated with various scandals of corruption that compromised other people (but not her). This tainted her image, and then anything less-than-perfect coming from her camp (emails) would only lead people to conclude the worst. No, there are no specific examples of Hillary doing specific acts of corruption, but that isn't why people were upset with her candidacy. To be blunt, her ethos was shit. Trump's ethos was fantastic by comparison, because he spent the better part of 20 years building it up. Hillary spent the better part of 20 years having hers brought down.

What I'm saying is that the statement that "both sides are the same" is a supposition that requires actual evidence. Yes, when running against Bernie Sanders or Barrack Obama, Hillary's Staff's incompetence with email security would be worth noting. So too, would the apparent nepotism involved in Cheryl Mills, or speaking fees being under-the-table payments, or any number of other issues. But it is not whataboutism to weigh the alternative, and in comparison, Trump's pre-election shenanigans alone outweigh Hillary's.

Now, I could go into trump's misdemeanors point-by-point, and by neglecting to do so I open myself up for people telling me to go do my own damned research first, but my argument is fundamentally not that Hillary was a good candidate nor even the better candidate, and instead that the "both sides are the same" argument is a lazy one that subtly undermines the very concept of Democracy. If both sides are the same, voting is irrelevant. If there is distinction, then voting is the engine of improvement, and it works the same within the parties as well as without. We can reclaim the parties (or make new ones, if needed). But saying they are the same is an argument for apathy and further decline.

[Max™]

I mean... nobody brought up the margin by which dumpsack won key states and how it is less than the third party vote in several of those states, probably because it is too depressing to focus on.

Either way there is nothing any other candidate could have done which would end up being more damaging to our position and reputation globally, more harmful for our future in terms of both rights and financial considerations, or more destructive everywhere else in so little time as the big fat bitchbaby has.

He isn't merely the worst of two bad options, he was far and away the worst possible choice available since what... Buchanan?

Shit, even a derpfuck like Johnson or whackjob like whats-her-face would be hard pressed to achieve so little with so much power in so short a time.

[sluissa]

Both parties are owned by corporate masters at this point, often the same corporate masters who don't care which are in power. Both parties are beholden to powerful and rich foreign interests.

The only reason you're pissed off at Trump over Clinton is that Trump doesn't even attempt to hide it (or when he does he's bad at doing so). Clinton has a career in politics that taught her to deflect and know how to keep the real evidence hidden.

The choices were douchebag and turd sandwich, and while we've seen what Trump has done, I doubt anyone could have predicted the sheer scale of what has happened. I also doubt anyone would have predicted Obama would have expanded drone strikes way beyond anything that was happening previously or been president through massive destabilization and war in the middle east. I don't think anyone would have predicted Bush would have used a massive terrorist attack and national tragedy to erode civil rights. I don't think anyone would have predicted that Bill Clinton, a democrat, would have shrunk the welfare system and ruined it for decades to come. Similarly I don't think anyone could predict what would happen with President Hillary Clinton either. All we have to go on are baseless and often impossible campaign promises from the campaign. The sort of promises that only get carried out... oh... a little better than half the time.

As it is though, Trump through his political incompetence, has thus far been stopped from having almost any long term effect on the country. (Other than the supreme court justices, and to a lesser extent the foreign tensions he's introducing.) Most of what he's implemented can and likely will be rolled back by a government that hasn't gone crazy. So for all of our sakes, shut up about "BUT HILLARY..." she lost. It's been almost 2 years since she lost. She lost for very good reasons. That she appeared untrustworthy, out of touch, often times crazy, weak, and that she has a long history of putting her own career ahead of the people she's supposed to be representing.

Find us the next candidate, and make it a good one, cause I don't want to sit through another 4 years of Trump either, and as willing as I am to throw my vote away on a third party if I don't like either of the two main parties, I'm fully aware it's little more than a protest vote when I do it. But I WILL do it if the party throws up another Clinton. And I know millions of other people out there will find their own reasons to vote elsewhere or simply not vote at all.

[scriver]

I haven't heard much about the Hawaiian (iirc) woman democrat in a while. Has the buzz faltered? Did she fall out of favour?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Gabbard? What's there to say about her? Nothing's really going on right now.

I mean, by Trumpworld standards, that is. Lots of really horrible shit is going on, but it's "status quo" now so remember to smile.

[scriver]

I just thought of her when the post above turned to other democrat candidate-might-bes.

Mainly because she and that racist Maine governor are the only democrat personalities I know of right now. And her who was speaker of the senate for many years - I can't remember her name either, but I am awful with names.

[smjjames]

She just sort of fell off the radar I guess due to not actively acting like she is going to run in 2020. That and the list of potentials has really expanded since and all of those are vying for attention.

I just thought of her when the post above turned to other democrat candidate-might-bes.

Mainly because she and that racist Maine governor are the only democrat personalities I know of right now. And her who was speaker of the senate for many years - I can't remember her name either, but I am awful with names.

'That racist Maine governor' is a Republican.... Though you aren't American, so the mixup is understandable.