"I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 01:39 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 11:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yes, that is certainly another big part of the problem: of all the millions of people in this country, the best two candidates we could find were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Really??? We've got to be doing something wrong.

Serious question. Can you tell me what (in your eyes) made Hillary such a terrible candidate?

She was the epitome of the slimy corrupt politician -- bought and sold by Wall Street, involved in numerous suspicious episodes (Whitewater, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the email fiasco, etc.) -- and not much more "liberal" than many of the Republicans. And regardless of what I personally think of her (I did, after all, vote for her, despite her faults, because I thought she was clearly better than Trump), she was hated by a large percentage of the American population. Is she really the best candidate the Democrats could find? For a career politician, she also turned out to be surprisingly inept as a campaigner -- neglecting to visit several important states (including mine, Wisconsin) which ultimately went to Trump by narrow margins, and publicly calling Trump's supporters "a basket of deplorables". Trump's campaign tactics and statements were equally bad, but at least he had the "advantage" (in many people's eyes) of not being a slimy corrupt politician (although the only one of those three words that didn't apply to him was the neutral one -- "politician"). The whole campaign reminded me of the kind of third-world elections that we like to make fun of. But I guess we can't do that anymore. Now they're laughing at us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
17-08-2017, 02:11 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:07 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 01:39 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  Serious question. Can you tell me what (in your eyes) made Hillary such a terrible candidate?

She was the epitome of the slimy corrupt politician -- bought and sold by Wall Street, involved in numerous suspicious episodes (Whitewater, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the email fiasco, etc.) -- and not much more "liberal" than many of the Republicans. And regardless of what I personally think of her (I did, after all, vote for her, despite her faults, because I thought she was clearly better than Trump), she was hated by a large percentage of the American population. Is she really the best candidate the Democrats could find? For a career politician, she also turned out to be surprisingly inept as a campaigner -- neglecting to visit several important states (including mine, Wisconsin) which ultimately went to Trump by narrow margins, and publicly calling Trump's supporters "a basket of deplorables". Trump's campaign tactics and statements were equally bad, but at least he had the "advantage" (in many people's eyes) of not being a slimy corrupt politician (although the only one of those three words that didn't apply to him was the neutral one -- "politician"). The whole campaign reminded me of the kind of third-world elections that we like to make fun of. But I guess we can't do that anymore. Now they're laughing at us.

OK, thanks. I disagree with a lot of your points, but I understand where you are coming from now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stefan Mayerschoff's post
17-08-2017, 02:11 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 01:39 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  Serious question. Can you tell me what (in your eyes) made Hillary such a terrible candidate?

You didn't ask me, but I'd like to share my thoughts.

Hillary was a terrible candidate for the following reasons (my opinions):

1. She strong-armed Bernie Sanders out of the primary with the help of the Democrat National Committee. Hindsight shows what I believe to be a concerted effort to push and hold Bernie to the sidelines when he obviously had a groundswell of support. As much as I didn't agree with him, he had a TON of people on his side. After he was unfairly sidelined, his supporters (many of them) wouldn't vote for Hillary.

2. I think her landing under sniper fire comment really hurt her. It was just a bold faced lie and she was caught without any recourse other than to say she was tired or some other such nonsense.

3. She was very reticent to actually come out and talk about her email server. She deflected, joked and did everything she could possibly do to avoid actually answering questions that a lot of the American people were interested in knowing about. To me, this made her look even more untruthful.

4. Benghazi was another big issue. At the end of the day, it looked to many Americans that her State Department was responsible for not answering the pleas of Mr. Stevens and then once the shit hit the fan, nobody went to help the embassy under siege. At least that is the common and most prevalent understanding, regardless of the actual truth (whatever that is). Then during a congressional hearing after the fact, she forcefully uttered the line, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Context doesn't matter for this line. It was used ad nauseam to show that she didn't really care about the lives lost under her watch.

5. Her fake mannerisms and trying to convince her prospective voters that she was just like them. Claiming to be broke after leaving the Whitehouse, then performing in front of Wall Street boardrooms for six figures or more.

6. While I'm sure many women wouldn't have cared, her husband was a philanderer and she didn't seem to mind as long as her political ambitions weren't sidelined. I would be willing to bet that a lot of women, who might have voted for her just because of her gender, chose to support another candidate for this reason alone.

There are more, but this is a good start.

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like reeveseb's post
17-08-2017, 02:12 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 01:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  In short, the excerpt you've quoted is a fancy tu quoque ... except that those twelve presidents did not take up arms against their own nation.

The first few of them did, though. They took up arms against England, which was their own nation at the time. I don't know whether that's part of Dr. H's point, but if not, it should be. If you're going to hate on Lee, Jackson, etc., because they were "traitors" -- well, so were Washington, Jefferson, et al. That label just didn't stick to them because their side won. The victors get to write the history books.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
17-08-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:11 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 01:39 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  Serious question. Can you tell me what (in your eyes) made Hillary such a terrible candidate?

You didn't ask me, but I'd like to share my thoughts.

Hillary was a terrible candidate for the following reasons (my opinions):

1. She strong-armed Bernie Sanders out of the primary with the help of the Democrat National Committee. Hindsight shows what I believe to be a concerted effort to push and hold Bernie to the sidelines when he obviously had a groundswell of support. As much as I didn't agree with him, he had a TON of people on his side. After he was unfairly sidelined, his supporters (many of them) wouldn't vote for Hillary.

2. I think her landing under sniper fire comment really hurt her. It was just a bold faced lie and she was caught without any recourse other than to say she was tired or some other such nonsense.

3. She was very reticent to actually come out and talk about her email server. She deflected, joked and did everything she could possibly do to avoid actually answering questions that a lot of the American people were interested in knowing about. To me, this made her look even more untruthful.

4. Benghazi was another big issue. At the end of the day, it looked to many Americans that her State Department was responsible for not answering the pleas of Mr. Stevens and then once the shit hit the fan, nobody went to help the embassy under siege. At least that is the common and most prevalent understanding, regardless of the actual truth (whatever that is). Then during a congressional hearing after the fact, she forcefully uttered the line, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Context doesn't matter for this line. It was used ad nauseam to show that she didn't really care about the lives lost under her watch.

5. Her fake mannerisms and trying to convince her prospective voters that she was just like them. Claiming to be broke after leaving the Whitehouse, then performing in front of Wall Street boardrooms for six figures or more.

6. While I'm sure many women wouldn't have cared, her husband was a philanderer and she didn't seem to mind as long as her political ambitions weren't sidelined. I would be willing to bet that a lot of women, who might have voted for her just because of her gender, chose to support another candidate for this reason alone.

There are more, but this is a good start.

My thought, after reading that, is not so much that Hillary was a terrible candidate, it's that Americans are terrible electors. Seriously, just about every point you made rests its validity on the appearance of spin or smear as opposed to the facts of what actually happened. But I guess too many people find thinking too hard.

It also underscores the effect that the current 24 hour entertainment/news cycle has by not only shaping, but actually re-writing the narrative that most people subsequently choose to view as factual.

Re-reading your list, it's basically a regurgitation of Republican talking points, complete with partisan inaccuracies and fabrications. I don't want to dissect them one by one, but let's take Sanders as an illustrative example. He was hardly "unfairly sidelined" - he lost the primaries by a wide margin even once you discount the impact of superdelegates. I'm not really sure how that's party leadership making a concerted effort to keep him sidelined. I'm also not sure what that has to with Hillary's quality as a candidate. Do you think she somehow strong armed the DNC into those actions against their will?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 02:40 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:11 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 01:39 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  Serious question. Can you tell me what (in your eyes) made Hillary such a terrible candidate?
. . .Her fake mannerisms and trying to convince her prospective voters that she was just like them. . . .

Consider What's un-genuine about





Weeping

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 02:43 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:40 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:11 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  . . .Her fake mannerisms and trying to convince her prospective voters that she was just like them. . . .

Consider What's un-genuine about





Weeping

We don't show that clip. You're dead to me now.

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ELK12695's post
17-08-2017, 02:45 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:43 PM)ELK12695 Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:40 PM)TSG Wrote:  Consider What's un-genuine about





Weeping

We don't show that clip. You're dead to me now.

Why don't you Pokémon Go fuck yourself? Yes

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:45 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:43 PM)ELK12695 Wrote:  We don't show that clip. You're dead to me now.

Why don't you Pokémon Go fuck yourself? Yes
Watch yo Profanity




[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:30 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  ... let's take Sanders as an illustrative example. He was hardly "unfairly sidelined" - he lost the primaries by a wide margin even once you discount the impact of superdelegates. I'm not really sure how that's party leadership making a concerted effort to keep him sidelined. I'm also not sure what that has to with Hillary's quality as a candidate. Do you think she somehow strong armed the DNC into those actions against their will?

This seems a bit unfair. I don't think Hillary Clinton herself was behind this, but the DNC decided early on that she was going to be their candidate, and basically rigged the primaries in her favor. The superdelegates alone were enough to do that. Once she has a shitload of superdelegates, Sanders is so far behind he doesn't have a chance -- so many people who might have voted for him went for Clinton because, well, "she's going to win anyway". There were also other things that they did, some behind the scenes. I don't know that Bernie would have won a fair race, but it wasn't a fair race. They never gave him a chance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: