ttystikk
Well-Known Member
And even those accusations are lies; they were part of Bernie's platform first.
Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
- Status
i must use sarcasm or i'll lose my mind. you'd think she'd be humbled by her experience. seems she just doubled-down..it's a sickness to need to be in power that bad.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I think it has to do with cash flows. As long as she's in the spotlight, the cash flows into her foundations and then into her pockets.
StonerCol
Well-Known Member
Whenever I hear her name I instantly think of her on the stage during the election campaign with that self-satisfied smug grin on her face as though she had a God-given right to be president. She makes me sick, people like her are diseased. She knows that we know how corrupt she is yet somehow everyone else standing against her is the problem and she is the solution.
I do find it strange though when thousands of people attend those rallies...all knowing that she is corrupt but still want to give their time and energy to her sordid way of life. They then chant USA! USA! USA! as if it is something to be proud of, supporting the likes of Killary. When will people wake up? Just like in the UK, there are far too many people who are dumb as fuck and unable to come to simple realisations.
In many countries the authorities need soldiers on the streets to protect a shady leader. It seem the US/UK are happy to support them without a gun in their face. It really is shameful.
I do find it strange though when thousands of people attend those rallies...all knowing that she is corrupt but still want to give their time and energy to her sordid way of life. They then chant USA! USA! USA! as if it is something to be proud of, supporting the likes of Killary. When will people wake up? Just like in the UK, there are far too many people who are dumb as fuck and unable to come to simple realisations.
In many countries the authorities need soldiers on the streets to protect a shady leader. It seem the US/UK are happy to support them without a gun in their face. It really is shameful.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
let it all out, folks.
This is Clinton's swan song, at least I hope it is.
What I heard was that Biden was done too, unless Bernie runs and for some reason the analyst thought he'd come in for a grudge match.
This is Clinton's swan song, at least I hope it is.
What I heard was that Biden was done too, unless Bernie runs and for some reason the analyst thought he'd come in for a grudge match.
a. I don't care one way or another if Bernie runs. If he feels up to it then good for him.
b. Fuck Biden
c. So done with Clinton. I expect her book to be coming to the discount bin in the dollar store, right next to memoirs of some has been porn star.
b. Fuck Biden
c. So done with Clinton. I expect her book to be coming to the discount bin in the dollar store, right next to memoirs of some has been porn star.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You can fool some of the people all the time...
It's no coincidence that PT Barnum was an American.
StonerCol
Well-Known Member
I thought it was Bob Marley who said that
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I thought he shot the sheriff?I thought it was Bob Marley who said that
StonerCol
Well-Known Member
He definitely said "Stand up for your rights." I wish more people would remember that than worry about the latest reality TV show.......
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
What the rich won't tell you
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?referer=https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/6yw02v/what_the_rich_wont_tell_you/
They don't want to admit just how obscenely wealthy they are, because it's unseemly and embarrassing in Ann age where do many are struggling to make ends meet.
Excerpt from the article;
"Calls from liberal and left social critics for advantaged people to recognize their privilege also underscore this emphasis on individual identities. For individual people to admit that they are privileged is not necessarily going to change an unequal system of accumulation and distribution of resources.
Instead, we should talk not about the moral worth of individuals but about the moral worth of particular social arrangements. Is the society we want one in which it is acceptable for some people to have tens of millions or billions of dollars as long as they are hardworking, generous, not materialistic and down to earth? Or should there be some other moral rubric, that would strive for a society in which such high levels of inequality were morally unacceptable, regardless of how nice or moderate its beneficiaries are?"
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?referer=https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/6yw02v/what_the_rich_wont_tell_you/
They don't want to admit just how obscenely wealthy they are, because it's unseemly and embarrassing in Ann age where do many are struggling to make ends meet.
Excerpt from the article;
"Calls from liberal and left social critics for advantaged people to recognize their privilege also underscore this emphasis on individual identities. For individual people to admit that they are privileged is not necessarily going to change an unequal system of accumulation and distribution of resources.
Instead, we should talk not about the moral worth of individuals but about the moral worth of particular social arrangements. Is the society we want one in which it is acceptable for some people to have tens of millions or billions of dollars as long as they are hardworking, generous, not materialistic and down to earth? Or should there be some other moral rubric, that would strive for a society in which such high levels of inequality were morally unacceptable, regardless of how nice or moderate its beneficiaries are?"
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It looks like she's posturing to run again. Still pretty early, but a few signs are there
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Hold up now...
You can say what you want but you still have to realize that she won the popular vote by millions.
Your personal feelings aside, factually she wasn't a weak candidate.
She smashed Bernie in the primary and smashed Trump in the general...
This is a fact the Cult of Bernie keep forgetting...
We get it, you don't like her but please stop the bullshit, Bernie lost by ALOT and you people have been trying to rationalize it for months and blame Hillary...but Bernie just didn't get the votes.
See? Not even one insult, just facts you absolutely cannot deny.
StonerCol
Well-Known Member
I can't agree or disagree with you cos I simply don't know - haven't kept up with her since she lost - except that she wrote her memoirs and I'm sure a part of that is about running again. I say that simply because people like her cannot just let things go. She'll see the impeachment of Trump as her way back in. She'll promise that she'll right the wrongs of Trump and millions will vote for her. She'll milk the situation for all it is worth and use the reaction against Trump to her advantage and her message will be "Yeah, you shoulda voted for me and none of this woulda happened. You NEED St Hillary to save you."
You just know it. She's diseased AND thinks she has the right to power and that nobody but her can put things right.
I hope the left-leaning people use the Trump failure in the right way but doubt it. People wil just want to vote the easy route cos we're lazy as a species. It needs a Bernie Sanders-type person to come along and offer a different and more people-friendly alternative. Killary will just be more of the same.
I don't know what it is about some women. When they get into power they have to be bigger cunts than their male counterparts. We have the same issue in the UK. I just want that when a woman gets elected she doesn't stop being a woman and suddenly develop more testosterone than a field full of rutting stags.
That's my thought from across the pond!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Oh, but you know she has to! The lifestyle to which she has become accustomed is very expensive and we wouldn't want her to give it up, would we?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The last paragraph will likely rub most of the Yanks who read it the wrong way- but I'm fully aware of the history of female PMs, right up to Teresa May. There's an unspoken requirement that they never appear weak and therefore must overcompensate.
America is failing. Failing the planet, failing is allies, failing its citizens, failing itself.
We are far too self important to slip gracefully into the sunset as 'the empire that once was'.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
She was a weak candidate though. There are no good excuses to trot out when she lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of our country. A racist, sexist used car salesman. Donald fucking Trump!
It is no consolation to point to the fact that she ran up her vote totals in liberal states like California and NY. Every single person in the country, including Hillary, knows that in order to win the election you have to peel off some swing states. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. She lost every single one of those states! To Donald Trump!
There is no good excuse to explain how *any* dem nominee could possibly lose to a candidate so woefully unprepared for office as Donald Trump.
As for Bernie, I tend to agree with you. He lost, and by a margin large enough to nullify the excuses being made by his supporters. I think he would have pummeled Trump head to head in the general, but we'll never know for sure....unless Bernie gets the nod in 2020 and Trump is still in office at that point. Probably unlikely on both counts.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Good heavens, youth movement, save us.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Not arguing, just wanting to dive into reasons why you think Bernie would have won. Is it more of a feeling that you have or do you have better information than your gut that Sanders would have won?
Post election analysis tells a different story than we received before and immediately after the election. Trump voters were motivated most strongly by racism and sexism, pretty much not by economic anxiety. The trends throughout the Obama era tells the same story. This election seems to be more a referendum against pc culture and for Trumps racist, sexist attitudes.
The above figure came from:
Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf
Trump won every economic group within the white delegation and lost by whopping margins in every economic group in the African American delegation. Yet, Sanders' appeal is for his economic policies. Seems to be less important than many assume.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I'm basing my assumption of Bernie beating Trump on a few things...
1) The polls before the election said so. The same polls that correctly said that Clinton would win by 2-3 points.
2) As you've pointed out, Bernie did not campaign much on social issues. He stuck mostly to economic talking points, and was beating the drum of wealth inequality more than anything. I think he would have peeled off a lot of uncertain Trump supporters due to that. Namely white men.
3) He did not have a high unfavorability rating like both Clinton and Trump had. Trump picked up a lot of votes simply as an anti-Hillary vote.
4) Like in the primaries, Bernie would have stuck with policy arguments and made Trump look like the unprepared fool that he was. Hillary failed to do that.
5) Bernie was offering change to the status quo. Obama won twice on that message, and I believe Bernie would have as well. Hillary represented business as usual, and people wanted change.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The idea that Trump voters were more strongly motivated by Trump's racist rhetoric has no meaning to you? Economic issues didn't affect the decisions made by Trump's voters. It was the Wall, Mexican rapists, Islamic terrorists and right wing white supremacy.
- Status