For people interested in how/why the Dems collapsed, this was written by a Dem party ex-worker:
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So what? The alternative was Trump. Meat and 2 veg and she would have walked it.
But she didn't react to his creepy stalker shit and she wasn't as aggressive in general as she would have been if she were a man (on advice that voters don't like aggressive women).
I didn't say there weren't other factors. I just said she would have walked it if she was a man. Even with the other factors.
To be perfectly honest, that creepy stalker shit should have ensured he lost the election regardless of the million of other things like slagging a gold star family etc. It's insane how he won. He's despicable, disgusting and it really is the lowest point of humanity next to genocide.
My god. There was a car I often pass by which had this sticker, and I thought it was a GOP parody or a self-made thing.
No. It's official party propaganda.
No. It's official party propaganda.
I think it played a role but it wasn't the main reason. She also had an illustrious CV, an ex-presidential husband, more campaign experience and an advertising budget 8 times bigger than Trump. And yet nobody can instantly remember any of her proposed policies. And everybody could name you at least 3 of Trump's.
I think her biggest cock-up was this very flawed communication strategy. Basically, she could not communicate her ideas to people, let along move them by them. That was partly because her ideas were unclear and because she allowed too many meddlers to confuse the narrative.
And that is an unforgivable mistake as well as a disastrous quality for somebody who seeks to run the free world. Conversely, its one of Trump's finest qualities.
She ran a poor campaign but Trumps was far far worse. He ran a campaign the same way he is running the Presidency. Clusterfeck after clusterfeck. He even admitted to sexual assault. A tub of margarine would have beaten Trump if it were a male tub of margarine.
I actually think her major campaigning flaw was being too cautious. Her advisers didn't want her to be accused of all the stereotypical women things Trump would have gone for and though his self destructive behaviour and looking calm and Presidential would be enough. Thta said a man could have run a worse campaign and won.
Bernie running would have been interesting as I think his centre right politics would have been far too commie for the US electorate.
I actually think her major campaigning flaw was being too cautious. Her advisers didn't want her to be accused of all the stereotypical women things Trump would have gone for and though his self destructive behaviour and looking calm and Presidential would be enough. Thta said a man could have run a worse campaign and won.
Bernie running would have been interesting as I think his centre right politics would have been far too commie for the US electorate.
Because his proposals so comedic/evil/stupid. Turn up to a black tie event in a clown suit and people will remember what you wore.
What? Trump communicates like a spoilt 14 year old running for class president. Offering free soda to all students and extending lunch time and holidays if you vote for him. Such obvious bullshit that it can't possibly be classed as good communication.
I'm neither defending Trump nor admiring him ... I detest him as much as the next guy. But since his win, I've tried as hard as possible to be empathetic to his voters (& BRexIt voters), to try and understand why they voted that way.
In hindsight, Hilary's 'deplorable's' comment was not only accurate, it was also the thing that killed her chances, given so many of Trumps voters voted twice for Obama.
His 'comedic/evil/stupid' narrative and messaging was remembered and liked by a large portion of the electorate. Likewise, his communication style since taking office continues to delight most of those who voted for him. They all believe that the media is loaded against him, and perhaps they all have a mental age of a 14-year-old?
feck me. The party has truly lost it. Clinton's entire platform in 2016 was essentially "I'm not Trump", and now they're pulling this nonsense again?
Still feel Brazile is lying?
Yes, Julian Assange is about as trustworthy a source as Manafort and the likes of Trump associates.
Also, he's 100% correct here:
The 'Meh! It was a year ago! Hillary is only a citizen now. Who cares?' brigade are pure cop-outs.
The 'Meh! It was a year ago! Hillary is only a citizen now. Who cares?' brigade are pure cop-outs.
Nonsense. Wikileaks have an impeccable record and publish irrefutable proof each and every release. When have they ever been proved incorrect?
Are there actually any rules against the DNC running their operation as they see fit?
So they worked closely with the candidate that appeared to be inevitably their nominee, shock horror.
Only Trump fans believe wikileaks, the Putin-funded anti-Hillary site nowadays.
As the Orange one has demonstrated over and over, it's about perception, not facts.
A lovely story for the unbiased, bipartisan U.S. news networks to wake up to...
That doesn't answer my question. It's a mere attempt at deflection and discrediting the source.
When have Wikileaks released a document which was fabricated?
Nope, it's extremely unethical, and that's being extremely kind. They circumvented the financial regulations to ensure donors could give ~$330,000 EACH, whilst Sanders and co. played it by the letter of the law, rather naively in hindsight. Also, there is evidence that less than 1% of state donations actually went back into state coffers, with the remainder rather conveniently finding its way into the Clinton camp.
True, they may not have broken any law per se, but it's not transparent and it's not ethical. Sanders' voters have every right to feel aggrieved.
Last edited:
Has to be a WUM.
Obama, as head of the DNC at this time and its figurehead, will not welcome these latest revelations. Clinton has an uncanny talent for controversy and scandal. It follows her around like a bad smell.
Last edited:
It's not. The White House doesn't even challenge their releases, e.g. the Podesta Files last year.
Seriously? The White House doesn't challenge them because they were clearly working to get Trump elected and were seriously biased and did everything they could to discredit Clinton.
What were the incorrect things wikileaks published?
They made some alterations to documents to make them appear more scandalous and conspiratorial. E.g photoshopping 'confidential' on documents that weren't, and cherry picked emails out of sequence to build new narratives.
Thanks.
Tbf that was the Kremlin rather than wikileaks, but the lines are pretty blurred at this point.
The macronleaks kind of showed that they are either unable to verify the sources or are colluding.
Once, maybe even twice, you might not draw the inevitable & obvious conclusion but the fact that it has gone on as long as she or her husband has been in politic clearly tells you it's not following them but rather initiated by the Clintons. And I continue to wonder, how do crooks with a pathology like this in politics manage to still flourish? I suppose it doesn't hurt to have a complicit and ignorant base to empower you to sidestep one criminal landmine after another
Politics in America, it really is in a free fall in terms of corruption and I have a hard time seeing how they course correct in the foreseeable future
Exactly, they also admitted to having dirt on Trump and his campaign but they kept it and didn't release it choosing to only release the stuff they had on Clinton instead. Their credibility is shot.
They flourish because they are surrounded by their kins, don't be naive most of them are like that.
That doesn't answer the question. When did Wikileaks ever fabricate a document? The content of the emails is the controversy here, not how they got leaked.
On a related point, the Obama administration had an incredible number of whistleblowers for someone who ran on 'transparency' being a key campaign message. You'd wonder why...
you are really good at thisI find it incredible that there are people out there dismissing these controversies simply because they don't like the source of the leaks.
The great thing for Clinton is that even if she had broken a million laws there could only ever be a mistrial thanks to Trump and friends comments.
I've never bothered to venture in this thread as I didn't see the point in it.
I mean, does anyone on here actually like her or want her to be president? (unless it was just to prevent Trump getting it). The DNC are fecking idiots for backing her.
I mean, does anyone on here actually like her or want her to be president? (unless it was just to prevent Trump getting it). The DNC are fecking idiots for backing her.