Edit: Due to the vague implications of the above comments, I was under the impression that the claim was Clintons’ intention to get Trump elected. Many, many comments later, it was explained that the more rational claim of encouraging Trump to run was because they thought he’d be an easy opponent to beat. Maybe people should say what they mean, rather leaving vague, incomplete, bait comments for others to determine their own interpretations of insinuation.
Yes. It’s well known that Hillary worked with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to keep Bernie out of the spotlight. Her goal was to force a win of the primary, not give the election to Trump.
It’s the ethical responsibility of the convention, not the candidate, to ensure an impartial primary. It’s a candidate’s job to self-advocate. It’s the convention’s job to keep it fair and balanced.
Hillary was a disappointment. Debbie was a failure.
It was the Hillary campaign’s decision to help elevate Trump to the nomination and give him as much media exposure as possible, thinking that it would make it easy for her to win.
It was also them that ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in history, including telling people not to vote for her and neglecting to campaign in key swing states out of pure arrogant hubris.
Inescapable conclusion to anyone who isn’t a Hillary stan or otherwise a blind Dem party loyalist:
Hillary and her campaign are more culpable for Trump infesting the white house than anyone else outside of the far right echo chamber and foreign agents.
So you reject the verified conspiracy of Debbie Wasserman Schultz intentionally shielding Bernie from the media prior to the primary, as well as the proof of exceptionally low Democratic voter turnout, in favor of a theory that claims the Clintons wanted a Russian conspiring real estate fraud to be President over Hillary.
How many millions of votes did Bernie lose the primary to Clinton by? Five?
I remember turning out for him, only to find reality drowned out by the online noise (read: misogyny) that still reverberates to this day. At the polling places? Crickets. The American public reaped what it sowed, and watching these conspiracy artists attempt to re-write history is little more than them climbing back into the hamster wheel. Vote.
Thank you for your sane and rational response. Between Ozma, VikingHippie, and Anticolonialist, I feel like the only orderly working the night shift at the asylum.
Return2ozma: provides tons of mainstream sources demonstrating actual things that objectively happened according to people who have no reason to make it up
This guy over here: “I still don’t believe your conspiracy theory” 🤦
None of those sources substantiate why they would want him to win. I completely agree that Hillary leveraged Debbie to keep Bernie out of the spotlight to force a win of the primary. I’d also believe it’s possible that Bill tried to convince Trump to run in order to ease Hillary’s win in the Presidential election.
Claiming that their goal was getting Trump elected is off the reservation cuckoobananas.
None of those sources substantiate why they would want him to win.
Nobody’s saying that the Hillary campaign wanted Trump to be president. As for why they wanted him to be the nominee, there’s no way that none of the sources say why.
Especially since the Dem party leadership apparently learned nothing and are still using the same pied piper strategy to support far right candidates in Republican primaries for the exact same reason.
Excellent. That’s honestly how all of the implications read in Ozma’s, Anticolonialist’s, and your comments. Not a single one of you completed your thoughts, leaving open inference that I perceived as motive to get Trump elected. I’m glad you hear that’s not your claim.
I can see how they’d ply Trump to run, and perceive him as an easy target in the election.
That doesn’t change the source of the failure. No matter how much pressure Hillary put on Debbie, it was Debbie’s job to remain impartial. It’s a candidate’s job to try to gain favor from the convention, just as it’s the convention’s job to remain impartial.
The blame for Trump’s presidency still falls on the shoulders of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the abstaining voters.
It’s a candidate’s job to try to gain favor from the convention, just as it’s the convention’s job to remain impartial.
“No you don’t understand, political candidates are supposed to be slimy and dishonest!”
Your insufferable attitude aside, that’s an insane position to take and it’s ridiculous you said that without providing anything to defend it like it’s common knowledge or something to be desired in a presidential candidate - especially after you were so anal about things that were explicitly spelled out for you and which you still struggled to understand
It’s the job of a candidate to self-advocate in every avenue. It’s the job of the committee to ensure a fair and impartial primary. Which one failed to do their job?
I assume you also blame Netanyahu for taking your tax dollars instead of the government for providing them?
You’re not making sense, dude. And your analogy is wack, too.
It’s their job to break the rules/cheat? Is it a sportsball player’s job to try and break their rivals’ legs?
Do you blame workers when they lose their jobs when factory jobs are shipped overseas?
I’d be happy to place some blame on lazy/disinterested citizens, complicit corporate media networks, the effect of legalized bribery in politics, but to go the other way and actually say you support candidates doing whatever it takes to win is gross
Have you ever worked with a kiss-ass? Someone who constantly sucks up to the boss and is always trying to impress them, even if they’re not the best at their job? Imagine the boss giving that employee preferential treatment over the other employees. More breaks, days off, buys them lunch, etc.
Who is wrong? The leader or the employee?
A politician’s job during a campaign is self-promotion. Of course they would try to ply favor from their convention. It’s absolutely expected behavior from a person in that position. It’s the conventions job to say no and keep it fair.
I’m not saying Hillary was ethical, but that Debbie was responsible.
It’s easier to point fingers at her, but it’s not her job to keep the primary impartial. As I said above, it’s a candidate’s job to self advocate. It’s the DNC’s job to keep the primary fair and impartial.
Hillary was a disappointment. Debbie was a failure.
I’m guessing you’re blaming her while having abstained from voting in 2016?
Yeah, you purity testing fuckers would currently be calling him names because he dared to compromise with people who only believe 99.95% of what you do.
Losing was the best thing to happen to Bernie. Now you can sanctify him because he’s not in the limelight.
Again, it’s well documented that Debbie was helping Hillary. It’s not Hillary’s job to be impartial, it’s Debbie’s. There’s a reason insurance companies won’t pay the claim if you’re robbed after leaving your doors unlocked. Candidates are expected to ask for preferential treatment. It’s the convention’s job to deny it. This was Debbie’s responsibility, and she failed to execute.
looks at Biden’s poll numbers in states he can’t afford to lose and stubborn insistence on not changing the unpopular course of action that caused them
It’s what happens when someone surrounds themselves with nothing but sycophants. There is no way that someone like Hillary would allow a truth teller in their orbit.
Yes. Her campaign elevated him to the nomination and ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in history, alienating tens of millions and leading to one of the lowest voter participations in presidential election history.
If they hadn’t done both, there’s no way that he’d ever had come within cheating distance of the white house.
Read the room Hill-dawg: no one likes you or is buying this horribly designed shit. You are the reason the United States is at 50/50 odds of going full fascism because you bet on yourself. Bad bet. Go away now
Would Hillary have been a better president than Trump?
Yes, absolutely, without question. 100,000% better.
Is Hillary more likable than Trump?
That’s up for debate.
Trump is charismatic and funny, thats why he was on tv. If only people didnt take him seriously or give him actual power. Let me remind you that /r/the_donald was a joke subreddit.
Hillary has no charisma. Also her campaign literally promoted Trump, because she thought he would have been an easier opponent. She is smart and capable(or was, she is kinda getting older nowadays) but her political positions are abhorrent. She could have been the perfect “reasonable republican” candidate.
It’s amazing to me that so few USians seem to understand the role the US plays in the world - but I’ll be happy to enlighten you.
Hillary would have handled the COVID-19 pandemic in the US far, far better than Trump have. Do you think that would have been good for you, perhaps?
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Hillary, being a Kissinger-trained and approved arch imperialist and warmonger, would have revelled in the bodycount she could rack up in the 3rd world - something which Trump was absolutely far, far too incompetent to do in the manner expected of the war criminals you vote into the Waffle House.
Again… she would have been better for the US. For the rest of the world she would have been a plague.
There is no need for you to demonstrate any further that you are perfectly content with US-enabled murder-sprees in the 3rd world as long as it doesn’t affect your bubble of privilege in the imperial core, liberal - you’ve managed that perfectly well.
We turned the meat industry into a disease factory because that’s more efficient, make sure the financial system incentives everybody in the industry to shut up and remain uncooperative with investigations and measures, rolled out the ads for people to travel all around the world so things can spread and have such an unhealthy political climate that even mentioning a risk in drinking raw milk drives up the sale of raw milk. What’s the worst that can happen, right?
Meat industry + destruction of natural habitats forcing wild animals into contact with domesticated animals or directly with humans + general climate change making the spread of diseases more easy…
The rate and intensity of pandemics is increasing and we are doing barely anything to address the root causes. Because that would mean to reduce some individuals profits and make some small adjustments to our consumption routines, while restoring nature that is sustaining us. And that is out of the question.
And as usual, this was predicted, warned about, is happening and stubbornly ignored. One of those many cans kicked down the road until the pile is too big to kick and starts to blocks the road.
Is it? I really don’t want to sound like I am downplaying this but is it increasing? People would get shit like polio and smallpox. We have had three pandemics in my life and two of them were isolated to 1-3 countries. Ebola and Sars.
Polio and smallpox were endemic. They were pretty bad, but as slowly evolving diseases once we got the vaccines down, we got them under control. Pandemics are new diseases w.o. efficient resistance / medical treatments or prevention
Russian and US propagandists are already on the loose, preparing to get people in the target countries not to follow practices like WFO or wearing masks in croweded places.
irishstar.com
Top