Hilary Clinton is still a bitter old woman

Author: HistoryBuff ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 51
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    News about a hilary clinton interview came out. In the interview Hilary shows off what a bitter, entitled person she really is. She claim that "no one likes" bernie sanders when he is the most popular senator in the country. 

    She refused to confirm whether she would endorse Sanders if he became the nominee. 

    She is obviously still REALLY bitter about losing to trump and wants to find a way to make it bernie's fault. it doesn't matter that he did like 40 campaign events for her after she became the nominee. it doesn't matter that bernie fought harder for her than she did for Obama when he was the nominee. She can't deal with the fact that she was a shitty candidate that people didn't want and she needs someone to blame.

    The fact that she would consider refusing to help bernie if he is the nominee when he fought for her is a really ugly look for her. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    outsider candidates get asked all the time if they will endorse the eventual nominee. If any one of them ever dared to say they might not, CNN, MSNBC etc would all lose their shit accusing them of supporting trump. But if some corportist shill like clinton does it, they don't care. 

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Why do we care?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @drafterman
    Why do we care?
    Fair point. I don't really care what she has to say. But alot of people still value her opinion (for some reason). I think every time she speaks about bernie or the primary she shows us more and more how out of touch she is with the country and what an entitled, bitter woman she is. 


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @HistoryBuff
    So you're taking this woman who you think is out of touch and entitled and... amplifying her voice?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @drafterman
    So you're taking this woman who you think is out of touch and entitled and... amplifying her voice?
    Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice. It is providing evidence as to why the establish of the democratic party have utterly failed and need to be replaced. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice.
    Yes it is.

    It is providing evidence as to why the establish of the democratic party have utterly failed and need to be replaced. 
    Except she's not relevant to the Democratic party anymore.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @drafterman
    Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice.
    Yes it is.


    No it's not. She already has every media outlet pumping out her messaging. Calling out the ridiculousness of her message does not amplify it further. 

    Except she's not relevant to the Democratic party anymore.
    Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party. She isn't running, but most of the major candidates running have had meetings with her. Most of the major campaigns are filled with staffers that are friends and allies of Clinton. The DNC is filled with her cronies. She is still extremely relevant until she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    No it's not. She already has every media outlet pumping out her messaging. Calling out the ridiculousness of her message does not amplify it further. 
    Anything you do that calls attention to the message and makes more people aware of it amplifies it.

    Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party.
    I don't think so. She's basically a punchline.

    She isn't running, but most of the major candidates running have had meetings with her.
    And?

    Most of the major campaigns are filled with staffers that are friends and allies of Clinton.
    Exactly. She is a ship that sunk. She herself is a lost cause that has no relevance any more. But that doesn't mean she didn't hire competenat staff or have powerful allies. That's exactly why you would have a meeting with her, to poach her resources and use them to your own ends. Doesn't make her the "center of the democractic party." She's a corpse and the vultures are feasting on her remains.

    The DNC is filled with her cronies. She is still extremely relevant until she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone. 
    It's DC politics. Everyone has connections with everyone going back to the dawn of the country. There is no point in time when "she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone." It's a self-perpetuating machine.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @drafterman
    Anything you do that calls attention to the message and makes more people aware of it amplifies it.
    It is playing on every network, mostly without the criticism it deserves. I cannot possibly amplify that. I can draw attention to how terrible it is. 

    Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party.
    I don't think so. She's basically a punchline.
    To you, sure. To the DNC, to the staffers in the Warren campaign (among others), to the millions of "woke" people who just want a woman president and don't care what policy's they support, to the countless bundlers and political donors, no you couldn't be more wrong. Hilary clinton still has a long reach in the democratic party. 

    And?
    Have you gotten meetings with all the major candidates? The reason they want to have meetings with her is because she is still a powerful figure in the democratic establishment. 

    Exactly. She is a ship that sunk. She herself is a lost cause that has no relevance any more. But that doesn't mean she didn't hire competenat staff or have powerful allies. That's exactly why you would have a meeting with her, to poach her resources and use them to your own ends. Doesn't make her the "center of the democractic party." She's a corpse and the vultures are feasting on her remains.
    Those people who were her allies, are still her allies. She has all the most powerful people on speed dial and if she calls them, they will damn sure answer. You might not have any respect for her (and I would agree), but the rich and powerful in washington still very much care what she has to say. 


  • SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 2,604
    3
    6
    10
    SirAnonymous avatar
    SirAnonymous
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I'm not a Bernie fan, but I agree with you here. This was a low move from Hillary. Ever since she lost the election, she's spent her time blaming everyone other than herself. But not only is she a sore loser regarding the election, she has also proved that she's a sore winner regarding the primary.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @SirAnonymous
    But not only is she a sore loser regarding the election, she has also proved that she's a sore winner regarding the primary.
    The worst part, to me anyway, is that bernie did endorse her. He did about 40 rallies for her during the election. And she still hates his guts for daring to run against her.

    In her mind she was the anointed one and anyone who dared to challenge her is a terrible person. 


  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,706
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Couldn't it just be that she hates his ideas and doesn't like what he is doing to the("her") party?
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,809
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    The salt because she's right. Only millennial's who try to be hip enjoy Bernie, and they ruin your party with their socialist ideas



  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,809
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    A country is supposed to be lassiez fair when a country booms and socialist in a bust. Maybe Bernie is good for the Great Depression, not for the Roaring 20s
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,809
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    I also am not some socialist hating conservative. My favorite president is FDR, a socialist himself. Socialism was needed to change due to Hoover's horrible govt and his terrible regulation, by killing children and veterans of WWI for wanting pay. His socialism benefited society, Bernie's hurts it. FDR kept businesses up to make money, but put money into the govt to pay off while still caring for the people. His command of WWII was great 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Couldn't it just be that she hates his ideas and doesn't like what he is doing to the("her") party?
    If her criticisms had been about his policies, then sure. They were not. They were personal. IE "nobody like him". 

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @SupaDudz
    A country is supposed to be lassiez fair when a country booms and socialist in a bust. Maybe Bernie is good for the Great Depression, not for the Roaring 20s
    This kind of thinking is kind of the problem. The laissez faire environment is what sets up the conditions for the bust that follows. Socialist policies then have to clean up the mess. When things go back to laissez faire you get a spike of the rich making lots of money, then another bust. If you kept good policies in control the whole time you could avoid more of this spike and crash cycle. 

    His socialism benefited society, Bernie's hurts it. 
    Why? If you accept that socialism was good when FDR did it, why is it bad now? How is it fundamentally different?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,706
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @SupaDudz
    I know Hoover was a “Republican” but he was by no means laissez-fairre. When FDR ran against him, he called HIM a socialist because of all of his spending. FDR ran on a more conservative platform, but never followed through 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Funny, people who voted for Hillery are calling her a bad choice now.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 860
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @ethang5
    It's actually rather tragic when your election system forces you to vote for a bad candidate, just because the other candidate is that much worse
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @ethang5
    Funny, people who voted for Hillery are calling her a bad choice now.
    Hilary was a bad choice. Trump might be the worst choice ever. The lessor of 2 evils is the preferable choice. 


  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,706
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Without laissez fairre economics, we probably wouldn’t be very industrialized. Certainly not a superpower. You can criticize the Industrial Revolution working conditions and such, but that period of little government regulation saw some of the greatest improvement in GDP, GDP per capita, innovation, and there was good wage growth

    On the other hand, socialist countries during their industrial eras, such as Russia, didn’t end up so well. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,470
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Without laissez fairre economics, we probably wouldn’t be very industrialized. Certainly not a superpower.
    Why would you think that?

    You can criticize the Industrial Revolution working conditions and such, but that period of little government regulation saw some of the greatest improvement in GDP, GDP per capita, innovation, and there was good wage growth
    It also saw almost unparalleled suffering for workers. The rich got massively richer while the poor struggled to survive. 

    On the other hand, socialist countries during their industrial eras, such as Russia, didn’t end up so well. 
    The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. There were no socialist countries. Russia only became communist 80-100 after the end of the industrial revolution. So no, a capitalistic, cutthroat american system out performed an incompetent monarchical system. In some senses it was just 2 different version of oligarchy competing. 

    And even then, no one is advocating for Socialism in america. They are advocating for reasonable regulation and limits on the abuse and greed of capitalism. That isn't socialism. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,706
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. There were no socialist countries. Russia only became communist 80-100 after the end of the industrial revolution. So no, a capitalistic, cutthroat american system out performed an incompetent monarchical system. In some senses it was just 2 different version of oligarchy competing. 

    I'm not talking about the specific Industrial Revolution. I am saying that when Russia was becoming an industrialized country. That happened under Stalin. Industrialization didn't have to happen during the 18th and 19th centuries, there are plenty of agrarian countries still in existence.

    It also saw almost unparalleled suffering for workers. The rich got massively richer while the poor struggled to survive. 

    And the unions (not the toxic ones like UAW of today) came in and negotiated better wages and working conditions. Individuals, not the government, worked it out. That is precisely how it should work. Different companies operate in different ways and broad governmental regulations that are supposed to apply to entire industries are bound to cause inefficiencies.

    Why would you think that?
    Well, for one, I can't think of one country with socialism has ever had a good outcome, not even during their industrialization.

    Laissez Fairre capitalism started being practiced in the mid-18th century, right when you said the Industrial Revolution started. Honestly, it arguably caused the Industrial Revolution. Are you going to say that incentives for individual prosperity and limited governmental barriers to entry didn't create this era of prosperity?

    Perhaps we should tax the crap out of anyone successful and regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms? And you wonder why more small business owners vote Republican than Democrat.......

    And even then, no one is advocating for Socialism in america. They are advocating for reasonable regulation and limits on the abuse and greed of capitalism. That isn't socialism. 
    It could have been someone else, but aren't you the guy that said taxation is "socialism"? But somehow giving government all control over the medical insurance sector is somehow not socialism?

    Not sure I have heard many "reasonable regulations" either.