Support NeoGAF

[Cocaloch]

Ah, bullshit!

Are you honestly going to tell me that wasn't something that people were talking about? Really?

Also, this is a question of degree right? I haven't met too many people that challenged the basic principle, and Hilary isn't saying anything particularly insightful about the degree here.

But yeah, what I was saying was totally just bullshit. That's why you have this well thought out refutation.

At that time the main-stream media was explicitly or implicitly normalizing Trump

I'm not denying that the media, specifically CNN, played a part in normalizing Trump. I'm also not sure how that's relevant.

so to have someone come out and explicitly say the guy is racist and will embolden racists was some much-needed directness

No one is criticizing her for saying it in this thread, people are rightfully pointing out that it wasn't particularly novel or insightful. The fact that CNN normalized Trump doesn't say anything about Hilary's comments. This is a very strange argument.

It wasn't seen as politically apt to tell the truth?

What's your point here? It often isn't. Politics isn't about some abstract truth. It's about winning elections.

Because her diction was wrong somehow, with the understanding that the other speaker is Donald Trump, all sniffling and incoherent? Jesus Christ, I guess we got what we deserved.

What is your point here? This sentence makes no sense, unless you're trying to argue why people said it wasn't apt. In that case the answer is it wasn't politically useful. I don't understand why you would be struggling with that. I honestly don't understand what you're doing here.

 

[LosDaddie]

At best, it would be Obama 2010-2016 levels of productivity in the House & Senate.

Correct.

With the GOP still in control on the Senate, House, and the majority of state legislatures, progress would nearly be at a standstill.

Would be curious to see how the GOP would move forward on her SCOTUS pick though.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Correct.

With the GOP still in control on the Senate, House, and the majority of state legislatures, progress would nearly be at a standstill.

Would be curious to see how the GOP would move forward on her SCOTUS pick though.

They were already threatening to hold Scalia's seat open all 4 years. Reminder

 

[LosDaddie]

Democratic primary doesn't count? 2000 Senate race doesn't count? New York Senate had never been a reliable Democratic seat, and the only reason to say the primary wasn't competitive is if you think Bernie was an absolutely fucking terrible candidate (which I think is close to, but not quite, right).

She lost to a political neophyte in Obama, and then won against an old white Jewish dude from NH. Yeah, I'd say it was an easy win in 2016.

As for the Senate, it was in a liberal state, and she had name recognition. She didn't even run in her home state of AR.

My point stands.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Are you honestly going to tell me that wasn't something that people were talking about? Really?

Also, this is a question of degree right? I haven't met too many people that challenged the basic principle, and Hilary isn't saying anything particularly insightful about the degree here.

But yeah, what I was saying was totally just bullshit. That's why you have this well thought out refutation.



I'm not denying that the media, specifically CNN, played a part in normalizing Trump. I'm also not sure how that's relevant.





No one is criticizing her for saying it in this thread, people are rightfully pointing out that it wasn't particularly novel or insightful. The fact that CNN normalized Trump doesn't say anything about Hilary's comments. This is a very strange argument.





What's your point here? It often isn't. Politics isn't about some abstract truth. It's about winning elections.



What is your point here? I honestly don't understand.

The directness of her comments was indeed novel in a world where most mainstream sources and politicians were giving Tump the mealy-mouthed "benefit of the doubt." The fact that you won't acknowledge that says everything about the unfair bias she faced. She literally predicted the future and you won't give her any credit. This is what is bullshit.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I herd she did some emails.

Kinky..

 

[Royce McCutcheon]

The directness of her comments was indeed novel in a world where most mainstream sources and politicians were giving Tump the mealy-mouthed "benefit of the doubt." The fact that you won't acknowledge that says everything about the unfair bias she faced. She literally predicted the future and you won't give her any credit.

That shit wouldn't have worked against Obama

 

[HariKari]

Probably should have run a better campaign if she knew what was at stake.

 

[RefigeKru]

Any Trump supporters about anymore?

 

[Astral Dog]

Unfortunately we didn't listen enough and they didn't warn us enough

 

[LosDaddie]

They were already threatening to hold Scalia's seat open all 4 years. Reminder

Sucks to say, but the Senate GOP played their cards right on this one. They got their guy on the SCOTUS for life.

 

[B-Dubs]

Unfortunately we didn't listen enough and they didn't warn us enough

The warning doesn't get more clear than what we got. We were told exactly what was going to happen, history is proving those warning 100% right, and it still happened. There were enough warnings, people just didn't want to believe it.

Also, we're a hell of a lot more racist than everyone thought we were.

 

[btrboyev]

But Killary. She's killed and murdered people.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

It was right in front of everyone's eyes, plain as day.

 

[UberTag]

Her emails and Obama being Obama is the reason The Road happened in some alternate reality.

Thanks Obama-Clinton.

'Alternate' reality? I'm still not convinced that's not our future reality.

 

[Cocaloch]

The directness of her comments was indeed novel in a world where most mainstream sources and politicians were giving Tump the mealy-mouthed "benefit of the doubt." The fact that you won't acknowledge that says everything about the unfair bias she faced. She literally predicted the future and you won't give her any credit.

The fact that I won't acknowledge that pointing out that a campaign based based on white nationalism winning would embolden white nationalists isn't novel or insightful because it's blindingly obvious and people have been talking about its implications since the republican primary? She predicted the future in an utterly facile way, and my response makes sense in light of that I think. I'm not saying she's wrong, I'm saying it's obvious. We've been talking about the implications of his campaign on this very board for over a year now.

It's also incredibly disingenuous to suggest that I'm operating under the bias that caused Hilary to lose, because I won't give her "credit" as if that matters.

I have nothing against Hillary, and would have loved for her to beat Trump. She didn't, and that sucks. I'm not sure why that means I need to decide she was a genius and prophetic for making this speech, other than that you seem to want some sort of punching bag here because you're upset that we lost.

This is what is bullshit.

Is it really?

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Everyone with a brain warned you. Unfortunately the brainless didn't listen.

Pretty much.

Everything unfolding is sort of what I was expecting. Not exactly obviously, but absolutely unsurprising and expecting.

Whoever thought differently was living in an bubble of ignorance, plain and simple.

 

[jack_package_200]

But Killary. She's killed and murdered people.

An yet she didn't have the sense to murder Anthony Weiner

 

[cdyhybrid]

Yeah but at least we don't have a corrupt corporate crony in the Oval Office amirite

 

[jaxpunk]

MAN I had no idea she could see the future. That powerball is up to 430 mill what would you guys think would be a good way for me to get ahold of her. I have a question that's super important.

 

[shawnbuddy]

The fact that I won't acknowledge that pointing out that a campaign based based on white nationalism winning would embolden white nationalists isn't novel or insightful because it's blindingly obvious and people have been talking about its implications since the republican primary. She predicted the future in an utterly facile way, and my response makes sense in light of that I think. I'm not saying she's wrong, I'm saying it's obvious. We've been talking about the implications of his campaign on this very board for over a year now.



Is it really?

What people? Just because, say, David Corn writes about it in Mother Jones doesn't mean it filters down to middle America.

It may have been obvious, but it wasn't directly, clearly stated in this way in the mainstream as often as it should have been. Instead we got the benefit of the doubt, we got the hope that he would change, we got the idea that there would be adults in the room to reign him in, we got people screaming at us and Hillary to "stop fearmongering" and to stop insulting racists, we got "give him a chance."

 

[Cocaloch]

What people? Just because, say, David Corn writes about it in Mother Jones doesn't mean it filters down to middle America.

Okay? I'm not sure what you're point is, because this doesn't seem to relate to how novel or insightful her point was, it has to do with outreach.

It may have been obvious, but it wasn't directly, clearly stated in this way in the mainstream as often as it should have been.

So it's one more person pinpoint out something that was obvious. That has some value, but I don't exactly think it's a huge deal. It's certainly not predicting the future in an impressive way.

Instead we got the benefit of the doubt, we got the hope that he would change, we got the idea that there would be adults in the room to reign him in, we got people screaming at us and Hillary to "stop fearmongering" and to stop insulting racists, we got "give him a chance."

Yes some people were stupid. People even voted for Trump. I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm not denying this.

I just get the strong feeling you've got some resentment or hatred of Hillary that's blinding you and keeping you from admitting that you're wrong about this one.

I think you're getting that feeling just because I disagree with you. I have no hatred or resentment of Hillary, but I get that suggesting that your opponent does have these things is an easy way to score points at the moment.

Blinding me to what? What am I wrong about exactly? You haven't been very convincing in arguing that this is either novel or insightful. I get that you think you're right, but do you really think your argument here is so foolproof that the only way someone wouldn't accept it is that they were burying their head in the sand?

Were you a big Bernie supporter?

Thanks for the ad hominem. I liked Bernie somewhat. I wouldn't call myself a big Bernie supporter, or a Hillary detractor.

I'm going to bring this down because I edited it in after your post and I think it's relevant.

I have nothing against Hillary, and would have loved for her to beat Trump. She didn't, and that sucks. I'm not sure why that means I need to decide she was a genius and prophetic for making this speech, other than that you seem to want some sort of punching bag here because you're upset that we lost.

 

[uncelestial]

I'll never understand why some people hate her so much. Or why she was considered divisive.

- For the right it was because of decades-long indoctrination against her
- For the left it was smaller things like taking Wall Street money, her Iraq vote, calling black youth "superpredators" and supporting a terrible crime bill, being against gay marriage until 2013, etc.
- Moderates didn't like her being under investigation or her general discomfort on the big stage -- she never had the casual easiness of her husband or Obama, unfortunately.
- This is to say nothing of the huge hit she takes from just being a woman. People have a hard time accepting that. Sexism, both conscious and unconscious, is a real thing, and accepting female authority is apt to "trigger" those who harbor it.

On a broader level outside of just what was going on with Hillary, I also think we've reached an age where moderates just aren't going to excite anybody anymore. We're all in our info bubbles and see things through ever more divided lenses. An Elizabeth Warren, who has more bonafides that motivates one side, could have worked. I won't mention you-know-who. But it really doesn't seem to please anybody if you try to straddle the fence these days.

 

[Travo]

Nine months later and it still stings for me.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

Yeah, many people were talking about this. It was known. That's why you had more Bernie supporters vote for Hillary than Hillary supporters vote for Obama (despite the stakes being so much lower for them, and so called 'Bernie or Bust'ers). The left was unified during the election, at least, more so than in the past. Huge wins in New York and California showed this. Problem was, the "average American" wasn't (white working class). The rust belt showed this.

However, Hillary shouldn't be given an ounce of anything. I'd be more forgiving if multiple people CLOSE to her, including two Presidents, didn't tell her to refocus. If she didn't take places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, for granted. Hillary clearly knew what the stakes were, so why did she go to Arizona? Why was she in California and New York so much? Why did she say she didn't even think about Trump anymore, while on the campaign trail? Plenty of people I knew were scared of Trump (especially the minorities), and wanted her to bring the best fight that she could. They were thinking of Trump, even if she wasn't. If it had been a minority running for president, they wouldn't have ran off to other states they had no hope of winning or other states they would win by twenty points. They would have doubled down on the states they knew they needed, because it was that important to win. For them, there would be something to lose, rather than the Presidency. I know certain people won't like this, but her running off and not taking Trump seriously was her white and wealthy privileged showing. Hillary had nothing to lose in this election, only things to gain, so why not try to get a few extra points in, of what will be a most glorious victory? Only someone like her would have been willing to make the foolish decisions she did.

Sorry, but when I think of all this, I don't feel "But what about the Hillary" about anything.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

If I'm not mistaken, lots of voters in this election could very well have grown up hearing the accusations. That sort of thing doesn't shake easy. The GOP does one thing really, really well. They stay on message. And they did that relentlessly with Hillary.

Yep. I used to be a lot more critical of Hillary until I started researching the history of the most common complaints against her.

The overwhelming majority of it is bullshit perpetuated by attrition.

 

[Neoweee]

Yeah, many people were talking about this. It was known. That's why you had more Bernie supporters vote for Hillary than Hillary supporters vote for Obama (despite the stakes being so much lower for them, and so called 'Bernie or Bust'ers).

I see this a lot, but do you have a source for it? One that properly accounts for non-voters, and isn't completely dependent on poor exit-polling data?

 

[shawnbuddy]

Okay? I'm not sure what you're point is, because this doesn't seem to relate to how novel or insightful her point was, it has to do with outreach.



So it's one more person pinpoint out something that was obvious. That has some value, but I don't exactly think it's a huge deal. It's certainly not predicting the future in an impressive way.




Yes some people were stupid. People even voted for Trump. I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm not denying this.




I think you're getting that feeling just because I disagree with you. I have no hatred or resentment of Hillary, but I get that suggesting that your opponent does have these things is an easy way to score points at the moment.

Blinding me to what? What am I wrong about exactly? You haven't been very convincing in arguing that this is either novel or insightful.




Thanks for the ad hominem. I liked Bernie somewhat. I wouldn't call myself a big Bernie supporter, or a Hillary detractor.

I'm going to bring this down because I edited it in after your post and I think it's relevant.

For the third time, the novelty is in telling Middle America this truth, slowly, directly and without equivocation, instead of the reassuring "both sides" lies they were constantly fed. If you refuse to give her any credit for cutting through the bullshit on Trump's racism in the most public forum possible, I don't know what to say and I don't understand your motivation if it's not GAF-standard Bernie resentment.

 

[Lorcain]

It's hard to read that, especially with how dead on accurate it is from our perspective today on the darkest timeline. Even her labeling of deplorables to his most ardent base was spot on. They are the worst of the worst.

 

[TaterTots]

"Its about who we are as a nation." Guess we figured that out.

 

[Cocaloch]

For the third time, the novelty is in telling Middle America this truth, slowly, directly and without equivocation, instead of the reassuring "both sides" lies they were constantly fed.

So the novelty is solely in the crowd whom she tried, and fairly clearly failed, to reach. That might be true, but that's a substantially less meaningful claim than I think you've gone after in the thread though. For instance when you were upset that I didn't acknowledge that Hilary "literally predicted the future" was that meaningful.

If you refuse to give her any credit for cutting through the bullshit on Trump's racism in the most public forum possible

It's good that she pointed out Trump was racist, and his campaign was built on racism. A very large number of other people were also doing this. If you want to say the fact that she had a big platform made it better because she reached more people that's your prerogative. Personally I think that the value of that would depend on how many people she actually convinced of anything with it.

To be clear, I'm not praising anyone else for mentioning this. I think it's incredibly obvious.

I don't know what to say and I don't understand your motivation if it's not GAF-standard Bernie resentment.

My motivation is I'm saying what I think is true, as I often do on this website.

 

[shawnbuddy]

So the novelty is solely in the crowd whom she tried, and fairly clearly failed, to reach. That might be true, but that's a substantially less meaningful claim than I think you've gone after in the thread though. For instance when you were upset that I didn't acknowledge that Hilary "literally predicted the future" was that meaningful.



It's good that she pointed out Trump was racist, and his campaign was built on racism. A very large number of other people were also doing this.



My motivation is I'm saying what I think is true.

Yes, in the lefty sphere. Just because you heard Ana say it on The Young Turks one night doesn't mean it was filtering down to most Americans. The mainstream just wasn't brave enough. Hillary said it even though that meant negative consequences for her, as with the "deplorables" thing. The crowd is "most of America," so that's kind of a big deal.

 

[HylianTom]

I want to be smug to the non-Hillary voters in my real life, but I've restrained myself to this one message:

when Trump's policies bite you in the ass - and they will at some point - do not fucking dare complain to me. You will find neither pity nor kind words nor comfort coming from my mouth.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yes, in the lefty sphere. Just because you heard Ana say it on The Young Turks one night doesn't mean it was filtering down to most Americans.

I'd appreciate if you cooled off with the ad hominems. I do not, and have never, watched(and/or read?) the Young Turks. I generally get my news from The Economist, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel.

I yielded to your point on this front already, so I'm not sure what you're going for. Hilary was the person with the highest profile saying this.

Hillary said it even though that meant negative consequences for her with the "deplorables" thing.

Okay?

Again I'm not sure what you want me to be saying here?

Am I supposed to praise her societal analysis, or am I supposed to praise the fact that she made her message from a very high profile position and thus was able to affect a greater change?

If it's the former, then I think we're all aware she wasn't the only one that noticed this. If it's the latter, as you've said, then didn't she actually fail to produce much of anything with this? She didn't win the election. Am I supposed to be praising the fact that she tried and failed to get people to realize this? If so, her position clearly wasn't particularly important.

Let me use a counterfactual to demonstrate what I'm getting at. In the situation where Hilary hadn't said this, and Bernie, since you seem to have decided I must be a Bernie bro, was the next highest profile person to say something to this effect, then I would still not be praising it as particularly insight or novel. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to say, that means it's not a big deal.

Honestly, I don't understand what you want out of me unless it's just simply to not challenge what you're saying.

 

[manfestival]

But Gary Johnson

 

[jack_package_200]

But Gary Johnson

What is a Leppo?

 

[Nephtis]

I think it's *because* of her warning that people took note and voted him in.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

It's a damn shame she had crappy advisors. Even worse that dems (including Bernie) couldn't full force back behind her.... aghghghghghgh

 

[Peltz]

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is another way of saying the Democratic base was okay with the victory of white supremacy.

I don't really believe this. Do you?

Doesn't opposition to white supremacy necessarily include opposition to the oppression of the global South by the global North?

 

[Conciliator]

what a brilliant hero

wait, I mean

what an evil monster

sorry I can't remember what side I'm on. Dukakis '88.

 

[xxracerxx]

I think it's *because* of her warning that people took note and voted him in.

"She's on to us!"

 

[Acyl]

Should be locked up.

Emails.

Trump tells it like it is.

War with Russia.

Assad.

Sta min ah.

 

[family_guy]

As a black man, I'm really disappointed at the poor turn out of minority voters. People I know couldn't be bothered unless it was a black candidate. Like did they really think it wouldn't matter who became president after Obama?

 

[BobNewbert31]

Sure as fuck ain't gonna keep them from voting if they couldn't even manage to do it to keep Agent Orange out of office.

If you don't vote, you should feel shitty about it. Guilt is a strong motivator.

Yup, guilt and shame are definitely motivating me personally. Sorry for not figuring it out earlier.

 

[Verano]

Fuck hillary...anyway...it still would've happened either way..these nazis were mobilizing during Obamas administration

 

[teruterubozu]

What's the point of a Hillary "I told you so"? Seriously we gotta move on from this guys. It's not doing us any good at all.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Which is funny because Trump hired people from there lol

hilarious

xD

 

[Toxi]

If you want a real laugh, read the GAF reactions to the second debate when Clinton called out Russia aiding Trump.

 

[Soulscribe]

I still have PTSD from election night and realizing how wrong I was about people in this country. We were offered a brilliantly smart and capable woman and instead opted for a misogynist with an open record of disrespecting women. America fucking failed

As a black man, I'm really disappointed at the poor turn out of minority voters. People I know couldn't be bothered unless it was a black candidate. Like did they really think it wouldn't matter who became president after Obama?

Casual political engagement has been happening for a long time - it's too bad that it had to happen at a time when minority rights were so at risk. If anything this year is teaching these voters the price of apathy.

Angry privileged white folks will continue to get what they want as long as they keep believing in the power of election while minorities don't.