Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Everything Trump does can be blamed on the DNC and Hillary.

Everything Trump does can be blamed on the DNC and Hillary.
Thread Tools
MacNNFamous
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2020, 09:06 PM
 
2016 opened my eyes, and now that I'm woke, I can barely pay attention or I start seeing red and want ISIS to take them all out. Hillary's "victory fund" purchased the debts of the DNC, to effectively control it before hte primaries even started. HRC, Debbie, and Donna were all in it together, as exposed in Donna's tell all book. The DNC emails leaked by Wikileaks proved that Debbie was actively working to sabotage Bernie, and she was forced to step down from her position.... and hired by HRC as a campaign manager the very next day. They didn't even ****ing CARE to hide it. Oh yeah guess you were sorta cheating completely in a federal eleciton oh well WOMYN POWER!!! So they pushed one of the most hated centrists down our throats, she ****ing lost, and now we have Trump. Everything Trump does... all of his blood, is on the hands that voted for HRC in the primaries.

And the trump people?

They’re all so hopelessly brainwashed, and you can provide them with literal videos that disprove their idiotic claims yet somehow their brainwashing has given them truly Olympic levels of mental gymnastics.
That said, things feel pretty hopeless. I know a lot of people who hate trump but I don’t know anyone stoked about Biden.

Boomers forced a centrist again; idk about you but I feel like Trump already won. He has a message and a story “**** you, libtards”. And there are a ton of people in this country that the democrats completely ignored. Now they have easy internet access and the ability to share false information and fake narratives.

They’re pissed off because America left them behind. Most of the Midwest is rotting; small family farms were replaced by giant corporate farms, and automation giant machines reduce the need for jobs, which left only shitty factory jobs. Those were ok until the elites allowed most of our production to be shipped overseas, so the sad reality is that most of this country has a very bleak future.

It’s a perfect storm of an absolutely huge group of people that have been ignored by American politics for decades as their quality of life sinks lower and lower. I don’t know how we can win w a centrist. If they had run a progressive it would have been every progressive, every green, more youth votes, and all the boomer centrists all behind one candidate.

Feel pretty hopeless.

Surrounded by trump signs right now. 😞
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2020, 10:14 PM
 
The DNC can do whatever they see as best for the party. Democracy is irrelevant. It’s a committee, not a republic.

Anyone who feels betrayed by how they behaved in 2016 had unrealistic expectations.

Also, Debbie‘s hair is the best.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2020, 10:59 PM
 
I think this is rather simplistic and forgets that the GOP could have nominated anyone from their 17ish hopefuls, which spanned the gamut from neocon to more centrist to cleptocrat crazy (Trump). Dumping the responsibility for the choice in the lap of the DNC is all too convenient IMHO. Plus, it forgets that Trump is at the end of a long development in the GOP. They could have taken the 2012 post-election report seriously and made an effort to appeal to a broader group of people. But the primary voters decided to nominate Trump. It is also not Hillary Clinton's fault that you seemingly have an easy time to get Trump supporters to yell racist things like “White power!” IMHO the path to Trump's presidency inside the GOP is way, way longer than that.

The GOP has decided more than two decades ago to go against science and reason. I can tell you that in most countries there is no rift between left and right, up and down or whatever coordinate system you use when it comes to deciding that e. g. voting by mail is a good idea during a pandemic. Or that wearing a mask is a simple thing to do in a pandemic to keep your fellow citizens safe and not a plot by some cabal to control the population. Or that climate change exists. Or that in order to appeal to a broader base of voters you need to change your policy goals. None of this is HRC's fault.

Clinton was and is responsible for her campaign and her campaign only.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2020, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The DNC can do whatever they see as best for the party. Democracy is irrelevant. It’s a committee, not a republic.
Plus, in 2020 Sanders was the favorite in the press and in terms of donations. Biden wasn't initially even in the top-5. Yet I think Biden played his cards right, and became the nominee. Not by delivering the best one-liners during debates or setting a part of the electorate on fire with his policy goals, quite the contrary. He's the boring, safe choice and that's what I think a good chunk of the electorate wants.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 04:19 PM
 
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 04:47 PM
 
It wasn't rigged. Bernie did well in iowa and new england, then when they got to south carolina all the biden fans came out to play. Once the playing field was trimmed down Biden was winning them all.

Whether that was due to:
1) more diverse states whose majority of black people like Biden
2) endorsements from progressive candidates as they dropped out (with the assumptions they'd be included in cabinet etc)
3) Progressives gradually realizing that it would take a middle of the road candidate to beat Trump, and that was more important than anything.

And I say this as a Warren supporter, who previously voted Bernie. I'll be voting for Biden, and we need to put conspiracies aside. So many of them are encouraged by outside agencies. Can this country handle 4 more years of Trump and still be a democracy?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Can this country handle 4 more years of Trump and still be a democracy?
Yes?
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It wasn't rigged. Bernie did well in iowa and new england, then when they got to south carolina all the biden fans came out to play. Once the playing field was trimmed down Biden was winning them all.

Whether that was due to:
1) more diverse states whose majority of black people like Biden
2) endorsements from progressive candidates as they dropped out (with the assumptions they'd be included in cabinet etc)
3) Progressives gradually realizing that it would take a middle of the road candidate to beat Trump, and that was more important than anything.

And I say this as a Warren supporter, who previously voted Bernie. I'll be voting for Biden, and we need to put conspiracies aside. So many of them are encouraged by outside agencies. Can this country handle 4 more years of Trump and still be a democracy?
Bullshit. The DNC is a well oiled machine and will do anything possible to keep progressives out and centrists in, because it keeps their corporate overlords happy.

2016: Rig primaries, run corporate puppet, control DNC, limit in person voting in areas w minorities/young people to overly rely on mail in ballots, the bernie blackout in mainstream media (https://decisiondata.org/news/politi...resident-2016/), debate questions leaked to HRC not bernie, the list can go on and on and on.

2020: They knew they had no chance going against bernie, so they played their identity politics game. They got pete to get all the gays and centrist suburban Karens, they got Yang to get delusional youth vote, they get Kamala for the black vote, they ran how many ****ing candidates in total against Bernie? I honestly don't even know. Then, after Bernie starts smoking all of them, they ALL drop out almost simultaneously and give their delegates to Biden, and the media runs with "Biden is now crushing it" and ignores him talking about the hair on little boys legs, ignores the Tara Reid rape accusations (even though months before it was "believe all women")...
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 07:44 PM
 
Also "it would take a middle of the road candidate to beat trump"

See: 2016
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Plus, in 2020 Sanders was the favorite in the press and in terms of donations. Biden wasn't initially even in the top-5. Yet I think Biden played his cards right, and became the nominee. Not by delivering the best one-liners during debates or setting a part of the electorate on fire with his policy goals, quite the contrary. He's the boring, safe choice and that's what I think a good chunk of the electorate wants.
You mean boomers. They got theirs. **** everybody else.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:01 PM
 
Of course, the only reason Hillary is so hated is because of the 30 year hate campaign instigated by Republicans that has made up endless preposterous shit about her to the point that even half the dem voters figure she must have done something wrong.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
You mean boomers. They got theirs. **** everybody else.
Sanders is too old to be a boomer. But that’s my biggest criticism of all candidates — including Trump, Biden, Sanders and Warren: they are all too old. Warren is the “youngest” at 71. You could add Nancy Pelosi and a whole bunch of Trump cabinet members to the list.

But I think the anger should not just be directed towards the Democrats. To be honest, I think the mood amongst Democrats is mostly reactionary. I have the impression that most primary voters saw Biden as the safest choice and went with that. Warren and Sanders were “too radical” and “too far left” — or they could be painted as such by hysterical right-wing media who insist that Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela. They didn’t want to take a gamble on a woman, because look how that turned out last time. Especially not a woman who is smart, outspoken and professorial. Or a person of color. Or someone who is perhaps slightly too young. Biden is a relic of the past and there is lots of nostalgia. When Senators worked across party lines. When America was respected in the world. That kind of thing.

While I agree that if I were American, I wouldn’t have voted for Biden in the primaries, because of his policy positions, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the best chances to be elected. Biden has a substantial lead in the polls and 538 gives him a 77 % chance to win. Now if I gave you a 22 % chance to win $10 million, you’d take those odds any day of the week, I reckon. So that doesn’t mean Biden has it in the bag, especially since Trump voters, like you wrote so funnily are Olympic-level athletes at mental contortions (that’s a really good turn of phrase, by the way). President Trump can be on tape saying he is downplaying the pandemic while he full well knows how dangerous it is. Nobody cares. He can claim to be the best President for the troops and yet insult vets and gold star families. If Clinton or Obama did any one of those things, the right-wing press would have ripped them to shreds. When even the reality of a pandemic does not change people’s minds in sufficient numbers, then I don’t know what Democrats can do — even if they had an Obama-level candidate that was seemingly grown in a lab.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course, the only reason Hillary is so hated is because of the 30 year hate campaign instigated by Republicans that has made up endless preposterous shit about her to the point that even half the dem voters figure she must have done something wrong.
Not true. I'm a progressive and she was legit terrible. Getting paid millions for speaking fees, the whole breaking up unions for walmart war against the working class, literally called black people super predators, against legalizing it, was against gay marriage until 2013/14, against single payer healthcare because she's in bed with for profit healthcare companies, constantly banging a war drum, list goes on and on and on. The only reason she got anywhere in 2016 was because she had vagina, her entire campaign was based around gender; her motto "imwithHER" and anyone against her was a 'bernie BRO".

**** her.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course, the only reason Hillary is so hated is because of the 30 year hate campaign instigated by Republicans that has made up endless preposterous shit about her to the point that even half the dem voters figure she must have done something wrong.
The sad thing is that during the last election cycle, we were drowning in so many BS stories about her mixing private and public emails (and nobody cares that the Trumps did the same during the election) that policy discussions totally fell by the wayside. I wish we could have seriously discussed her policy positions — and she is way too hawkish for my taste. IMHO that’s exactly why the GOP focussed the discussion on non-sense, because she was closer to traditional GOP positions in many areas than Trump (e. g. on foreign policy and free trade, remember when the GOP was for free trade?).

And her loss is really covered in a weird way, too. In terms of popular vote, she did exactly as predicted and did better than Obama in 2012. Of course, the popular vote does not get you the presidency. Trump won the election with significantly fewer votes than Romney who lost to Obama.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Sanders is too old to be a boomer. But that’s my biggest criticism of all candidates — including Trump, Biden, Sanders and Warren: they are all too old. Warren is the “youngest” at 71. You could add Nancy Pelosi and a whole bunch of Trump cabinet members to the list.

But I think the anger should not just be directed towards the Democrats. To be honest, I think the mood amongst Democrats is mostly reactionary. I have the impression that most primary voters saw Biden as the safest choice and went with that. Warren and Sanders were “too radical” and “too far left” — or they could be painted as such by hysterical right-wing media who insist that Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela. They didn’t want to take a gamble on a woman, because look how that turned out last time. Especially not a woman who is smart, outspoken and professorial.
Liz is a spineless lump of crap. Fauxgressive. Loves to talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. In 2016, stayed silent on Bernie, who was supposedly close to her ideals, steps right in behind HRC rah rah sister hood! Silent on DAPL. Silent on pretty much everything when it may be detrimental to take a stand. She has no backbone whatsoever. Oh yeah, and accused Bernie of being sexist, lmao. The whole pretending to be a minority to get a job. Her 'cookbook', "Pow wow chow"... jfc. The woman will say whatever, whenever it is convenient for her.




While I agree that if I were American, I wouldn’t have voted for Biden in the primaries, because of his policy positions, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the best chances to be elected. Biden has a substantial lead in the polls and 538 gives him a 77 % chance to win. Now if I gave you a 22 % chance to win $10 million, you’d take those odds any day of the week, I reckon. So that doesn’t mean Biden has it in the bag, especially since Trump voters, like you wrote so funnily are Olympic-level athletes at mental contortions (that’s a really good turn of phrase, by the way). President Trump can be on tape saying he is downplaying the pandemic while he full well knows how dangerous it is. Nobody cares. He can claim to be the best President for the troops and yet insult vets and gold star families. If Clinton or Obama did any one of those things, the right-wing press would have ripped them to shreds. When even the reality of a pandemic does not change people’s minds in sufficient numbers, then I don’t know what Democrats can do — even if they had an Obama-level candidate that was seemingly grown in a lab.
Didn't all the polls say Hillary had a 99% chance of winning?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Not true. I'm a progressive and she was legit terrible. Getting paid millions for speaking fees, the whole breaking up unions for walmart war against the working class, literally called black people super predators, against legalizing it, was against gay marriage until 2013/14, against single payer healthcare because she's in bed with for profit healthcare companies, constantly banging a war drum, list goes on and on and on. The only reason she got anywhere in 2016 was because she had vagina, her entire campaign was based around gender; her motto "imwithHER" and anyone against her was a 'bernie BRO".

**** her.
I totally agree, I completely share your criticism of her policy positions. But I don’t think this is why she lost. The election wasn’t about that. The election coverage wasn’t about substantive issues.

And most people seem all too eager to accept the narrative why Trump won: a man for the forgotten people my rear end. In opposition to all those celebrities from TV and Hollywood.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Didn't all the polls say Hillary had a 99% chance of winning?
538 gave her a 66 or 67 % chance of winning. So I think this was quite accurate. I didn’t pay attention to other ones, although I am sure many got it quite wrong.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course, the only reason Hillary is so hated is because of the 30 year hate campaign instigated by Republicans that has made up endless preposterous shit about her to the point that even half the dem voters figure she must have done something wrong.
There were two good reasons to hate Hilldawg.

1) She’s only nominally a Democrat. You could put me in her place and the only difference you’d notice is I’m okay with guns.

2) She’s paranoid to the point it interferes with her decision making. That was the fundamental problem with the email server. In a bid to keep her communications out of the hands of her political enemies, she handed them over to every foreign security agency in the world.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course, the only reason Hillary is so hated is because of the 30 year hate campaign instigated by Republicans that has made up endless preposterous shit about her to the point that even half the dem voters figure she must have done something wrong.
My own reasons to reject Hillary had nothing to do with the above. I considered Hillary an entitled opportunist.

(opportunist & low personal standards) When Prez Bill was caught cheating with a bunch of women, Hillary kept him. In my opinion, for future political gain. A divorcee might have a harder time winning office.

(entitled & lazy) When the 2016 election was in the late stages, she took the win for granted. Didn't bother campaigning further in close states. Didn't try to earn the office.

Also, she struck me as too typical of a politician. She was comfortable with the status quo, and wouldn't try to improve things for the average American. I've gotten so tired of sit-in-office politicians. Half my life is gone, and things aren't much better than when I was a kid. Give me someone who will take risks for their fellow citizens. Not Trump, who wouldn't risk a splinter for anyone else.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2020, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
My own reasons to reject Hillary had nothing to do with the above. I considered Hillary an entitled opportunist.

(opportunist & low personal standards) When Prez Bill was caught cheating with a bunch of women, Hillary kept him. In my opinion, for future political gain. A divorcee might have a harder time winning office.

(entitled & lazy) When the 2016 election was in the late stages, she took the win for granted. Didn't bother campaigning further in close states. Didn't try to earn the office.

Also, she struck me as too typical of a politician. She was comfortable with the status quo, and wouldn't try to improve things for the average American. I've gotten so tired of sit-in-office politicians. Half my life is gone, and things aren't much better than when I was a kid. Give me someone who will take risks for their fellow citizens. Not Trump, who wouldn't risk a splinter for anyone else.


Exactly. A centrist. Change nothing.

Thing aren't much better? They are objectively worse. Sure, we have more SJW stuff, but that acceptance is not something that affects most Americans, nor does it help them out.

Income inequality affects 99.9999% of the population. LBGT stuff affects 3-5%. Minorities are 35-40% of the population. So if I were running a campaign, would I focus on common issues that bring people from all walks of life together, or should I only focus on things that make us different that affect less than 50% of the population?

Ugh. Not that that stuff isn't important... but this, basically:

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 04:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
My own reasons to reject Hillary had nothing to do with the above. I considered Hillary an entitled opportunist.

(opportunist & low personal standards) When Prez Bill was caught cheating with a bunch of women, Hillary kept him. In my opinion, for future political gain. A divorcee might have a harder time winning office.

(entitled & lazy) When the 2016 election was in the late stages, she took the win for granted. Didn't bother campaigning further in close states. Didn't try to earn the office.

Also, she struck me as too typical of a politician. She was comfortable with the status quo, and wouldn't try to improve things for the average American. I've gotten so tired of sit-in-office politicians. Half my life is gone, and things aren't much better than when I was a kid. Give me someone who will take risks for their fellow citizens. Not Trump, who wouldn't risk a splinter for anyone else.
This strikes me as too cynical a take and have little to do with policies. Marriages are complicated and Hillary Clinton strikes me as plenty powerful enough to divorce him if she felt like it. Plenty of women and men I know decided to stay with their partner even when their partner cheated on them. Also lazy is not an adjective I’d attach to most politicians, you have to work long, crazy hours. And I likewise would not connect picking a wrong election strategy with a value judgement, I don’t think she felt entitled, I just think she had those states in the bag and was focussing on others.

I think none of these things matter when it comes to judging politicians.

My objection to her was just on policy grounds, and since I know we both share a lot of these concerns (e. g. support for warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial aka illegal killings) I don’t want to reiterate points we both agree on. But I don’t care about perceived likability or whether or not she decided to stick with her husband, I don’t care about that in my dentist or my brain surgeon either. But she’d been an infinite improvement over Trump, even if just for the people she put in charge and the work ethic she would have brought to the job and the network of people she could rely on.

Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Thing aren't much better? They are objectively worse. Sure, we have more SJW stuff, but that acceptance is not something that affects most Americans, nor does it help them out.
It is false to think that these are things that concern “few” people. Name me one extended family without gay family members. Many have members of multiethnic backgrounds.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Income inequality affects 99.9999% of the population. LBGT stuff affects 3-5%. Minorities are 35-40% of the population. So if I were running a campaign, would I focus on common issues that bring people from all walks of life together, or should I only focus on things that make us different that affect less than 50% of the population?
If you are a minority, then how one minority is treated is usually how other minorities are treated. This isn’t either or. In about about 20, 25 years America went from homophobia being normal even amongst progressive kids in school to being socially unacceptable. I was shocked in 1997 how backarse backwards many of my fellow high school students in rural PA were when it came to homosexuality. (Gladly, my parents are very progressive in that regard.)

Minorities tend to be affected by income inequality more strongly than white people. And now that the impact is felt by more and more white people, the issue gets more prominence. If people had listened to minorities earlier, they could have dealt with the underlying issues earlier before it had such a wide impact.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Minorities tend to be affected by income inequality more strongly than white people. And now that the impact is felt by more and more white people, the issue gets more prominence. If people had listened to minorities earlier, they could have dealt with the underlying issues earlier before it had such a wide impact.
This.

Now, all of a sudden, white people are facing issues that wouldn't exist if they'd cared about fixing the same issues minorities have lived with forever. The issues simply didn't matter as long as it was just minorities dealing with them.

Go figure.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Not true. I'm a progressive and she was legit terrible. Getting paid millions for speaking fees, the whole breaking up unions for walmart war against the working class, literally called black people super predators, against legalizing it, was against gay marriage until 2013/14, against single payer healthcare because she's in bed with for profit healthcare companies, constantly banging a war drum, list goes on and on and on. The only reason she got anywhere in 2016 was because she had vagina, her entire campaign was based around gender; her motto "imwithHER" and anyone against her was a 'bernie BRO".

**** her.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There were two good reasons to hate Hilldawg.

1) She’s only nominally a Democrat. You could put me in her place and the only difference you’d notice is I’m okay with guns.

2) She’s paranoid to the point it interferes with her decision making. That was the fundamental problem with the email server. In a bid to keep her communications out of the hands of her political enemies, she handed them over to every foreign security agency in the world.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
My own reasons to reject Hillary had nothing to do with the above. I considered Hillary an entitled opportunist.

(opportunist & low personal standards) When Prez Bill was caught cheating with a bunch of women, Hillary kept him. In my opinion, for future political gain. A divorcee might have a harder time winning office.

(entitled & lazy) When the 2016 election was in the late stages, she took the win for granted. Didn't bother campaigning further in close states. Didn't try to earn the office.

Also, she struck me as too typical of a politician. She was comfortable with the status quo, and wouldn't try to improve things for the average American. I've gotten so tired of sit-in-office politicians. Half my life is gone, and things aren't much better than when I was a kid. Give me someone who will take risks for their fellow citizens. Not Trump, who wouldn't risk a splinter for anyone else.


So firstly, if these were reasons to prefer other Dems over her in the primaries then fair enough. If these are reasons to vote for Trump or not to vote at all, then stop kidding yourselves. Against a Romney or a McCain then sure but any of you who voted before 2008 definitely voted for someone worse so this screams of either unconscious gender bias, or unconscious induced bias due to the aforementioned relentless 30 year hate campaign.
No-one likes being told (or realising) they've been unduly influenced but people's personal politics get swayed by the others around them and the views of the electorate when it comes to politicians. She wouldn't have been able to just do whatever she wanted. Even Trump gets roped back when he charges headlong at the wrong lines to cross. She is still the single most qualified presidential candidate in US history when you look at her resume. Cue groans and arguments.

I considered Hillary an entitled opportunist.
I compare this to what you have ended up with and I can't even.


Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post


Exactly. A centrist. Change nothing.

Thing aren't much better? They are objectively worse. Sure, we have more SJW stuff, but that acceptance is not something that affects most Americans, nor does it help them out.
You did say you were progressive right?


I realise this has been framed as Giant Douche Vs Turd Sandwich with an attitude that they both suck equally but ultimately one of those is much worse than the other. Even if someone offers them both and you only have to handle one, there is a clear winner. If you actually have to make use of one the gulf is even more enormous.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This strikes me as too cynical a take and have little to do with policies.
The question was why voters didn't vote for Hillary in 2016. I did not, so gave the reasons for my decision back then. They had nothing to do with a decades-long Republican smear campaign.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So firstly, if these were reasons to prefer other Dems over her in the primaries then fair enough. If these are reasons to vote for Trump or not to vote at all, then stop kidding yourselves. Against a Romney or a McCain then sure but any of you who voted before 2008 definitely voted for someone worse so this screams of either unconscious gender bias, or unconscious induced bias due to the aforementioned relentless 30 year hate campaign.
Again, cannot speak for others' choices. I have long voted for whoever I believe would do the best job, with little regard for their chances of winning. I vote my hopes, rather than my fears (of other candidate winning). My choices are often 3rd party candidates, and often lose. Again, no influence from a long Republican smear campaign.

I never sit out presidential votes. In 2016, I voted for Johnson for Prez, as I believe he would do the best job in office. Both major-party choices were disliked by a majority of Americans, and both drew less than 50% of the vote. Anyone disliked by a majority shouldn't gain office.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Minorities tend to be affected by income inequality more strongly than white people. And now that the impact is felt by more and more white people, the issue gets more prominence. If people had listened to minorities earlier, they could have dealt with the underlying issues earlier before it had such a wide impact.
This is an excellent observation. I agree.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 11:58 AM
 
Yeah I've voted primarily green party for the past 2 decades. Not a huge fan of libertarians, but they're way more willing to change new things than Dems or Repubs, so they're okay I guess. Once we get a third party that gets 5% of the popular vote, we will start to see major changes.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Again, cannot speak for others' choices. I have long voted for whoever I believe would do the best job, with little regard for their chances of winning. I vote my hopes, rather than my fears (of other candidate winning). My choices are often 3rd party candidates, and often lose. Again, no influence from a long Republican smear campaign.
It's another unfortunate side effect of the electoral college system that it throws away the votes of any third-party voter. Sure, it's a signal of dissent, but if you have corrupt proto-fascists in power, why the **** should they care about dissent?

I never sit out presidential votes. In 2016, I voted for Johnson for Prez, as I believe he would do the best job in office. Both major-party choices were disliked by a majority of Americans, and both drew less than 50% of the vote. Anyone disliked by a majority shouldn't gain office.
There is a HUGE difference between "disliked" and "not preferred".

Democracy is about choosing the compromise you are least uncomfortable with, or that has the greatest overlap with your preference.

If your system is rigged to kill third-party votes, then that means a tactical ballot to achieve the compromise most aligned with your interests.
Anything else is tacit approval of whatever the outcome is.

This works in multi-party systems too, of course. I've done this on occasion to help enable specific coalitions. (Obviously limited to basically one option in systems like the U.S. that don't allow third-party representation.)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 05:12 PM
 
Bernie Bros are beyond tiresome. They just can't seem to accept the fact that the actual Democratic party electorate is far more diverse than the progressive echo chamber on Twitter.

OAW
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 06:43 PM
 
Boomers are tiresome. They can't seem to accept the fact that most young people are beyond ****ed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The question was why voters didn't vote for Hillary in 2016. I did not, so gave the reasons for my decision back then. They had nothing to do with a decades-long Republican smear campaign.
I want to be careful to tread the line between giving you food for thought and just hammering you, and I apologize if my you felt I crossed that line.

Let me go away from Hillary Clinton and give you an example where you don’t have a dog in the fight — Angela Merkel. I simultaneously think that she is one of the most talented and accomplished politicians of her generation and oppose most of the things she actually did (e. g. slow down the expansion of renewables, extend the operating licenses of nuclear power plants just to renounce that not even a year later, a decision that will cost the German tax payers billions, she was (and reckon still is) opposed to proper marriage equality, her governments have consistently exported weapons into war zones, which is against the law, I despise the hollowing-out of the right to asylum that is enshrined in the German constitution, I could go on and on). But when she said that the Covid-19 pandemic will be the biggest crisis in German after WW2, I completely believed her. I trust that she is hard at work solving the crisis. I don’t agree with all of the decisions, but I feel that in most cases the direction is the right one. I think she comes across as, well, not the life of the party. But I am good with that. Quite the contrary, her not being magnetic and automatically likable is a plus in my book. (I have made the opposite experience first-hand once, where I changed my opinion after meeting one politician who I initially thought was an unethical douche, and it turned out he was and is an unethical douche.)

Also, as someone who thinks is 10-20 years ahead of his time (and I really feel vindicated) on topics like equality for women and men, gay marriage, climate change, nuclear power (in the German context at least), etc. I know how frustrating it feels that society isn’t there yet and instead nominates a centrist. The way I solved this for me is to prefer to believe that people like us are necessary to create the pressure to move to the future we want to live in.

The third piece is really gender. Let me dip into my treasure chest of personal experience once more. My boss is like Hillary Clinton (without Bill Clinton). She made a career in science in a country that is (together with South Korea) ~120th of the world in terms of gender equality. She also has excellent political connections right up to the Prime Minister’s office. She is tough and quite hawkish. I certainly wouldn’t want to cross her. She behaves and acts like a man, which — if you are not used to it — can take you aback. She probably would not score high on the likability scale either. Despite the really tough shell, she really, really works hard, much harder than almost all of her male peers. I know a fraction of her schedule, and she works really hard. And she does a proper job. (And because she usually has, and I am not kidding, usually 3 jobs at the same time, I am free to do what I want to do.) When I think of Hillary Clinton, I think of my boss.

Coming back to US politics. Like Merkel I believe Hillary Clinton would have been supremely capable at her job and continued many of the policies I see as completely backwards and wrongheaded. Unlike Merkel, the Clintons — like pretty much all US politicians — either have been rich or have gotten rich after leaving office. This is an American phenomenon that I indeed think is a symptom of a big problem. But the Clintons aren’t alone in this, the US is a country where former generals get six figures for speaking gigs. That being said, adjectives like “lazy” don’t make sense to me. For example, I think if she were president, there’d be tens of thousands less dead from the Covid-19 pandemic because she’d be working hard. I don’t think she would have weakened the bonds to democratic allies and fawned over autocrats and dictators. And despite her hawkishness, I don’t think she would have approved as many drone strikes as Trump.

We were talking about why it is bothering me that people are hammering on Clinton for losing to Trump. Everything that has happened post-2016 is evidence to me that even against a candidate of the statue of Obama, JFK or FDR Trump would have almost gotten elected in the sense that he would have gotten 40+ % of the popular vote. I think of Roy Moore who only narrowly lost despite credible allegations of pedophilia. To me that’s the story, not that Clinton was a sub-par candidate with some ex post facto justifications. I hope that gives you an idea where I am coming from.

On the other hand, I believe Rob is correct that wealth inequality would not have been on the agenda (at least not until the outbreak of the pandemic), even though it is indeed a huge topic in the US. Even though it seems I have been arguing against him for the duration of this thread, I actually agree with him on that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2020, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Boomers are tiresome. They can't seem to accept the fact that most young people are beyond ****ed.
And if "most young people" actually showed up at the polls and voted commensurate to the degree that they talk sh*t then it would be an entirely different conversation. So until then ....

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2020, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Boomers are tiresome. They can't seem to accept the fact that most young people are beyond ****ed.
Young people are less likely to vote, and they are less likely to vote in primaries. And minorities overwhelmingly voted for Biden. We can speculate about the reasons (perhaps it is because many minorities are socially more conservative or because they think Biden has a higher chance to win, and winning against Trump is more important than other issues). I understand that Sanders has a legit history as someone who has cared about equal rights since he first became politically active, and I can understand the frustration amongst Bernie supporters that he didn't get more traction amongst black voters because of his record. But it seems to me that Sanders lost fair and square, even though I don't completely understand why.

Even though I am not participating in the election, I was also hoping for a less centrist candidate, especially because the US has wandered so far to the right over the years.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2020, 04:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I want to be careful to tread the line between giving you food for thought and just hammering you, and I apologize if my you felt I crossed that line.

Let me go away from Hillary Clinton and give you an example where you don’t have a dog in the fight — Angela Merkel. I simultaneously think that she is one of the most talented and accomplished politicians of her generation and oppose most of the things she actually did (e. g. slow down the expansion of renewables, extend the operating licenses of nuclear power plants just to renounce that not even a year later, a decision that will cost the German tax payers billions, she was (and reckon still is) opposed to proper marriage equality, her governments have consistently exported weapons into war zones, which is against the law, I despise the hollowing-out of the right to asylum that is enshrined in the German constitution, I could go on and on). But when she said that the Covid-19 pandemic will be the biggest crisis in German after WW2, I completely believed her. I trust that she is hard at work solving the crisis. I don’t agree with all of the decisions, but I feel that in most cases the direction is the right one. I think she comes across as, well, not the life of the party. But I am good with that. Quite the contrary, her not being magnetic and automatically likable is a plus in my book. (I have made the opposite experience first-hand once, where I changed my opinion after meeting one politician who I initially thought was an unethical douche, and it turned out he was and is an unethical douche.)

Also, as someone who thinks is 10-20 years ahead of his time (and I really feel vindicated) on topics like equality for women and men, gay marriage, climate change, nuclear power (in the German context at least), etc. I know how frustrating it feels that society isn’t there yet and instead nominates a centrist. The way I solved this for me is to prefer to believe that people like us are necessary to create the pressure to move to the future we want to live in.

The third piece is really gender. Let me dip into my treasure chest of personal experience once more. My boss is like Hillary Clinton (without Bill Clinton). She made a career in science in a country that is (together with South Korea) ~120th of the world in terms of gender equality. She also has excellent political connections right up to the Prime Minister’s office. She is tough and quite hawkish. I certainly wouldn’t want to cross her. She behaves and acts like a man, which — if you are not used to it — can take you aback. She probably would not score high on the likability scale either. Despite the really tough shell, she really, really works hard, much harder than almost all of her male peers. I know a fraction of her schedule, and she works really hard. And she does a proper job. (And because she usually has, and I am not kidding, usually 3 jobs at the same time, I am free to do what I want to do.) When I think of Hillary Clinton, I think of my boss.

Coming back to US politics. Like Merkel I believe Hillary Clinton would have been supremely capable at her job and continued many of the policies I see as completely backwards and wrongheaded. Unlike Merkel, the Clintons — like pretty much all US politicians — either have been rich or have gotten rich after leaving office. This is an American phenomenon that I indeed think is a symptom of a big problem. But the Clintons aren’t alone in this, the US is a country where former generals get six figures for speaking gigs. That being said, adjectives like “lazy” don’t make sense to me. For example, I think if she were president, there’d be tens of thousands less dead from the Covid-19 pandemic because she’d be working hard. I don’t think she would have weakened the bonds to democratic allies and fawned over autocrats and dictators. And despite her hawkishness, I don’t think she would have approved as many drone strikes as Trump.

We were talking about why it is bothering me that people are hammering on Clinton for losing to Trump. Everything that has happened post-2016 is evidence to me that even against a candidate of the statue of Obama, JFK or FDR Trump would have almost gotten elected in the sense that he would have gotten 40+ % of the popular vote. I think of Roy Moore who only narrowly lost despite credible allegations of pedophilia. To me that’s the story, not that Clinton was a sub-par candidate with some ex post facto justifications. I hope that gives you an idea where I am coming from.

On the other hand, I believe Rob is correct that wealth inequality would not have been on the agenda (at least not until the outbreak of the pandemic), even though it is indeed a huge topic in the US. Even though it seems I have been arguing against him for the duration of this thread, I actually agree with him on that.


TL;DR version: Its not Hillary's fault that nearly half of Americans are either assholes or imbeciles or both.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,