she was a horrible candidate. Character assassination is a poor excuse, Hillary and the democrats hurt her and her campaign with their tactics and underestimating Trump and to how many people she had to appeal to. If Hillary was a good candidate, attempts at character assassination wouldn't have done as well as it did. She was a panderer, and the way she acted trying to be cool showed that she was a try-hard trying to appeal to younger generations, especially with her "Pokemon GO to the polls!!!11" thing. Hillary did a poor job throughout the campaign, and to deny that would be to live in a delusion.
Me either! I can't wait to see how he breaks the laws and goes against the Constitution to make himself and family richer and make sure his businesses make more money, or how he shares US secrets with Putin, or how he destroys the country's economy while blaming someone like Obama! FUN TIMES INDEEDILY DOO!
So in one day trump's foundation admits to self dealing, trump apparently tried to do business in formal meetings with world leaders and settles (in spite of claiming to never settle) his fake university lawsuit for 25 mil.... Odds are he got off easy with those 25 mil.
she was a horrible candidate. Character assassination is a poor excuse, Hillary and the democrats hurt her and her campaign with their tactics and underestimating Trump and to how many people she had to appeal to. If Hillary was a good candidate, attempts at character assassination wouldn't have done as well as it did. She was a panderer, and the way she acted trying to be cool showed that she was a try-hard trying to appeal to younger generations, especially with her "Pokemon GO to the polls!!!11" thing. Hillary did a poor job throughout the campaign, and to deny that would be to live in a delusion.
She was not a horrible candidate.
And of course any candidate can be brought down by character assassination.
It does not have to happen, but even with obama, it played a role in the elections. If obama had not had the 'change' populism with him, it could have been very different.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate, she was made one.
She woulda made a fine president, now you ended up with trump because clinton made bad pokemon go references.
She was a horrible candidate. She lost the election, and if she was running against a competent candidate, she'd have lost the popular votes as well. And while any candidate can be brought down by character assassination, good ones don't lose to it. Obama was a great candidate because he appealed to people and promised change. Even FDR won his third term despite character assassination. It's a bullshit excuse, especially for someone who won the popular vote. She did nothing to inspire people to vote for her, other than saying "I'M BETTER THAN TRUMP SO POKEMON GO TO THE POLLS!"
If anything, at the least Hillary was made into a worse candidate from bad. Nothing really indicates she'd have made a decent president, just a better one than Trump. We ended up with Trump because the democrats and Hillary fucked themselves over. Claiming otherwise is being part of the problem.
She was not a horrible candidate.
And of course any candidate can be brought down by character assassination.
It does not have to happen, but even with obama, it played a role in the elections. If obama had not had the 'change' populism with him, it could have been very different.
Clinton was not a horrible candidate, she was made one.
She woulda made a fine president, now you ended up with trump because clinton made bad pokemon go references.
What difference does that make? Even if clinton was as good as you claim, on which I disagree, that she wasn't able to handle the attacks and having her image destroyed is bad enough. The fact is that people do not trust her. If anything it seems to be only the center and establishment democrats that like her. Anyone outside of that (say, the more liberal-progressive democrats) just hated her. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't trust her. Whether it was because she was unfairly character assassinated or because she was corrupt is irrelevant. Choosing a establishment candidate who then went on to run a status quo campaign in a time where the mood is clearly anti establishment on all ends is simply not a smart move on democrat's part nor on hillary's. In the end hillary lost because she was a bad candidate. She didn't even need to defend herself from the real issues she had as a candidate since the people were to focuses on the most idiotic fakes ones... She had every chance to win this and blew it. And the result is half trump's cabinet hating black people, jews and foreigners.
She was a horrible candidate. She lost the election, and if she was running against a competent candidate, she'd have lost the popular votes as well. And while any candidate can be brought down by character assassination, good ones don't lose to it. Obama was a great candidate because he appealed to people and promised change. Even FDR won his third term despite character assassination. It's a bullshit excuse, especially for someone who won the popular vote. She did nothing to inspire people to vote for her, other than saying "I'M BETTER THAN TRUMP SO POKEMON GO TO THE POLLS!"
If anything, at the least Hillary was made into a worse candidate from bad. Nothing really indicates she'd have made a decent president, just a better one than Trump. We ended up with Trump because the democrats and Hillary fucked themselves over. Claiming otherwise is being part of the problem.
That is an opinion we don't share then.
We will see next election mate.
Let someone like sanders run, a man you would find honest, and watch how they will try to destroy him.
What difference does that make? Even if clinton was as good as you claim, on which I disagree, that she wasn't able to handle the attacks and having her image destroyed is bad enough. The fact is that people do not trust her. If anything it seems to be only the center and establishment democrats that like her. Anyone outside of that (say, the more liberal-progressive democrats) just hated her. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't trust her. Whether it was because she was unfairly character assassinated or because she was corrupt is irrelevant. Choosing a establishment candidate who then went on to run a status quo campaign in a time where the mood is clearly anti establishment on all ends is simply not a smart move on democrat's part nor on hillary's. In the end hillary lost because she was a bad candidate. She didn't even need to defend herself from the real issues she had as a candidate since the people were to focuses on the most idiotic fakes ones... She had every chance to win this and blew it. And the result is half trump's cabinet hating black people, jews and foreigners.
Is it irrelevant? As i said to M3j, we will see next election.
Let the democrats put out some guy who is initially likeable and just watch.
We cannot forget that clinton had high approcal ratings when she was secretary of state.
They went down when the alt media gave everything they had, starting with benghazi (a conflict you yourself think is an almost complete clusterfuck of false accusations).
I have no doubt that they could do something like that to sanders too.
You might be correct that it would be harder, because at least sanders would have had less infighting with college kids accusing him to be racist.
But I bet they can find (or just make up) something.
And what does it mean that clinton could be character assassinated with basically nothing really tangible except her being establishment?
It means they can do that to any established politician, and that is horrible.
A lot of people who voted for obama before now voted trump, simply because the US seems to have an ever growing 'change' population who will run after any new fad in an election.
And there are people who made it their work to control these kinds of voters, and that is insanely dangerous.
What difference does that make? Even if clinton was as good as you claim, on which I disagree, that she wasn't able to handle the attacks and having her image destroyed is bad enough. The fact is that people do not trust her. If anything it seems to be only the center and establishment democrats that like her. Anyone outside of that (say, the more liberal-progressive democrats) just hated her. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't trust her. Whether it was because she was unfairly character assassinated or because she was corrupt is irrelevant. Choosing a establishment candidate who then went on to run a status quo campaign in a time where the mood is clearly anti establishment on all ends is simply not a smart move on democrat's part nor on hillary's. In the end hillary lost because she was a bad candidate. She didn't even need to defend herself from the real issues she had as a candidate since the people were to focuses on the most idiotic fakes ones... She had every chance to win this and blew it. And the result is half trump's cabinet hating black people, jews and foreigners.
That is an opinion we don't share then.
We will see next election mate.
Let someone like sanders run, a man you would find honest, and watch how they will try to destroy him.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Is it irrelevant? As i said to M3j, we will see next election.
Let the democrats put out some guy who is initially likeable and just watch.
We cannot forget that clinton had high approcal ratings when she was secretary of state.
They went down when the alt media gave everything they had, starting with benghazi (a conflict you yourself think is an almost complete clusterfuck of false accusations).
I have no doubt that they could do something like that to sanders too.
You might be correct that it would be harder, because at least sanders would have had less infighting with college kids accusing him to be racist.
But I bet they can find (or just make up) something.
And what does it mean that clinton could be character assassinated with basically nothing really tangible except her being establishment?
It means they can do that to any established politician, and that is horrible.
A lot of people who voted for obama before now voted trump, simply because the US seems to have an ever growing 'change' population who will run after any new fad in an election.
And there are people who made it their work to control these kinds of voters, and that is insanely dangerous.
Someone like Bernie wouldn't do as badly as Hillary did because tons of people wouldn't believe that. He cares, and he's shown that hundreds of times. He's out there fighting against DAPL, whereas Hillary's camp is for Dakota Access Pipeline, if not against the protesters. The fact that Hillary was "characteristically assassinated" and people believed it says a lot about her image and her. There are already some conservatives and Trump supporters trying to "character assassinate" Bernie, which isn't working too well right now. And you know what? It'll be harder to believe them because Bernie has always shown he's about the people, that he's cared about the real issues. Hillary hasn't, not genuinely anyway.
Is it irrelevant? As i said to M3j, we will see next election.
Let the democrats put out some guy who is initially likeable and just watch.
We cannot forget that clinton had high approcal ratings when she was secretary of state.
They went down when the alt media gave everything they had, starting with benghazi (a conflict you yourself think is an almost complete clusterfuck of false accusations).
I have no doubt that they could do something like that to sanders too.
You might be correct that it would be harder, because at least sanders would have had less infighting with college kids accusing him to be racist.
But I bet they can find (or just make up) something.
And what does it mean that clinton could be character assassinated with basically nothing really tangible except her being establishment?
It means they can do that to any established politician, and that is horrible.
A lot of people who voted for obama before now voted trump, simply because the US seems to have an ever growing 'change' population who will run after any new fad in an election.
And there are people who made it their work to control these kinds of voters, and that is insanely dangerous.
I don't think they could do that to bernie sanders to be honest. What happened this election wasn't an accident, clinton has been taking attack after attack for 20 years from republicans. And it is not just that that hurt her, quite a bit there was self inflicted.... It's not merely her being establishment, it's a bunch of small things which added up. You have the email scandal, which while not nearly as serious as it is made out to be, does open some questions regarding her transparency. Then you have the democratic party itself being almost overtly less than impartial regarding the primaries....
Obama wasn't in fact nearly as progressive as he is made out to be. As I have pointed out before, put him in europe and he would be well within the right wing. but considering the context of the US, the guy was a pretty good start. He was clearly pro corporation, he extended the bush tax cuts but he was still a good start on a number of issues. Say, climate change and he actually did not start any wars himself (he joined a few but he did not start them). So then you have hillary and she will continue obama's policies except that she will be more agressive, something which the progressive wing of the party is specifically against. And of course she has in fact taken millions of dollars from wall street and on top of that you have emails which explain in excruciating detail how she plays her foundation to secure paid speeches from god knows who by creating the idea that they can get close to the clintons (whether this materializes is not is a different issue).
So.... what does this tell us? To me this looks like the DNC was actively trying to screw their very voters. Sure, hillary could have done some good things, there is no reason for us to think she wasn't honest regarding most of the things she offered. But offering more of the same is just not a good campaign particularly when there are things which obama did that needed further work or weren't progressive enough. Using the power of hindsight, it is quite clear that hillary wasn't a good candidate. She simply had too much baggage. And her campaign seemed to almost overtly want to screw people. Now, this isn't to say trump was a good candidate. The guy is a piece of crap who conned a country. But that hillary lost, that she couldn't rally people behind her to oppose such a grotesque excuse of a human being, that's simply because she wasn't a good enough candidate. In the end the smear campaigns against her were effective because there was real baggage that created the illusions that there was credibility to what was said about her (her emails, taking millions of dollars of wall street, the leaked emails)...
And yes, what happened to hillary could happen to any other mainstream politician. That's the world we live in. At the very least politicians will have to watch what they write in emails because there is no guarantee of privacy anymore.
Yes our businesses right to operate the salary and pay of their workers is finally being put back into their hands. I cant wait to see what more bad Obama practices will Trump and the republican inquisition nullify to get our country back on the right path.
And yes, what happened to hillary could happen to any other mainstream politician. That's the world we live in. At the very least politicians will have to watch what they write in emails because there is no guarantee of privacy anymore.
Okay, fine, but i don't think that this is the takeaway politicians will take here.
The takeaway will be that they will lie more and try to memefy themselves and stop talking about policy.
It simply means that a lot of capable politicians will be excluded from having a shot for presidency simply because they are no good showmen.
that was true in american elections before, but not to this extreme degree,
And if you let me go distopy for a minute: The next presidents will be lik showhosts.
They present the jokes, everybody laughs, but the people writing the jokes sit in backrooms without anyone knowing who they are (because clearly parties will still only let people run which they think they can control. I am pretty sure reps think they can control trump (and i also think they are right). And no matter how many Breitbart psychos or 'deplorables' Trump might appoint: I think the person running this show on the longterm is pence and other people we would not know about exactly how much influence they have).
That is an opinion we don't share then.
We will see next election mate.
Let someone like sanders run, a man you would find honest, and watch how they will try to destroy him.
Of course they will try to destroy him, and it worked out pretty well with Obama when people were using scare tactics to prevent him from gaining voters because "Muh guns!" and "Obama is Hitler". Sure, you could say there are other factors that plays in.
The more I think about it, the more I'm believing that Trump wouldn't really be THAT big of an issue. My biggest problem is who he's filling in those seats in his Administration. People might argue that he may not be anti-LGBT, anti-muslim, or any types of phobic suffix, but it's who he's filling in the positions that's going to be problematic.
Okay, fine, but i don't think that this is the takeaway politicians will take here.
The takeaway will be that they will lie more and try to memefy themselves and stop talking about policy.
It simply means that a lot of capable politicians will be excluded from having a shot for presidency simply because they are no good showmen.
that was true in american elections before, but not to this extreme degree,
And if you let me go distopy for a minute: The next presidents will be lik showhosts.
They present the jokes, everybody laughs, but the people writing the jokes sit in backrooms without anyone knowing who they are (because clearly parties will still only let people run which they think they can control. I am pretty sure reps think they can control trump (and i also think they are right). And no matter how many Breitbart psychos or 'deplorables' Trump might appoint: I think the person running this show on the longterm is pence and other people we would not know about exactly how much influence they have).
Well, that is two different issues. One being politicians being subjected to decade long smear campaigns and another that candidates will aim to trump themselves up. Though I don't think this is really all that new. Every age has its share of populist demagogue showmen who do their thing. Trump is neither the first of his kind nor the last. Well, he might be the first wannabe two bit dictator who rules from twitter.
If republicans think they can control trump then they are bigger idiots than trump himself lol. The idea is completely idiotic. They don't even know if he might actually do work himself, how can they expect anything? I agree in that pence will be doing most of the work though. The question is whether pence does what he wants or what trump wants.
The more I think about it, the more I'm believing that Trump wouldn't really be THAT big of an issue. My biggest problem is who he's filling in those seats in his Administration. People might argue that he may not be anti-LGBT, anti-muslim, or any types of phobic suffix, but it's who he's filling in the positions that's going to be problematic.
That does not make much sense lol. If trump is filling his cabinet with actual nazis then I don't see how it isn't trump that is the center of the problem. by any logic, that is him being "the" problem and basically what most people were worried about when they elected him. He is president, not king, he can't implement xenophobic policies on his own. Seriously, I bet you can't walk 2 meters there without hearing a "hail hydra".
That does not make much sense lol. If trump is filling his cabinet with actual nazis then I don't see how it isn't trump that is the center of the problem. by any logic, that is him being "the" problem and basically what most people were worried about when they elected him. He is president, not king, he can't implement xenophobic policies on his own. Seriously, I bet you can't walk 2 meters there without hearing a "hail hydra".
Well, I meant himself not being a HUGE problem. It's more like George Bush and Dick Cheney scenario as an example: Bad president, scumbag of a vice-president.
But you're right that Trump would be the center of the problem just as Bush was (then again, I don't want to compare Bush to Trump because at least Bush actually has self-respect).
Of course they will try to destroy him, and it worked out pretty well with Obama when people were using scare tactics to prevent him from gaining voters because "Muh guns!" and "Obama is Hitler". Sure, you could say there are other factors that plays in.
The more I think about it, the more I'm believing that Trump wouldn't really be THAT big of an issue. My biggest problem is who he's filling in those seats in his Administration. People might argue that he may not be anti-LGBT, anti-muslim, or any types of phobic suffix, but it's who he's filling in the positions that's going to be problematic.
Trump is a huge issue because he can appoint the wrong people, like he's doing, to power. The right wings' fucked up ways of thinking can become a reality and affect so many people, even if Trump himself doesn't do much with policies. Only way he wouldn't be that big of an issue is if he fought against or shot down most things his choices want to pass.
Again, Hillary lost because of her and dems' ways. Blaming "character assassination" is dumb, especially when it's happened to many politicians who still won. Hillary still won the popular vote, but one would argue that it was more because she was the lesser evil. She didn't inspire people to vote for her as well, and the way the party treated Bernie made a lot of his supporters either not vote or vote for Trump. If Hillary at least went to more places to campaign and actually looked genuine instead of pandering, she might have gotten more votes. The emails and lies from Trump and conservatives didn't help, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference if Hillary did a better job.
Trump himself is a ruthless scumbag, sure, but he is more Jelzin than Putin. Horrible person, but can be handled.
The problem is that, to get elected, Trump needed lots of help and now he has lots of favors to pay back to actual nazis and other rather vile forces.
And he seems to be more than willing to pay all those favors back (maybe some people even would have stuff to blackmail him in their pockets).
So ya, Trump himself is not dangerous because he does not have a real agenda (cept the tax cut of course, i see that as the center of all he actually wants).
However, the people he owes favors too are VERY dangerous.
Trump is a huge issue because he can appoint the wrong people, like he's doing, to power. The right wings' fucked up ways of thinking can become a reality and affect so many people, even if Trump himself doesn't do much with policies. Only way he wouldn't be that big of an issue is if he fought against or shot down most things his choices want to pass.
Again, Hillary lost because of her and dems' ways. Blaming "character assassination" is dumb, especially when it's happened to many politicians who still won. Hillary still won the popular vote, but one would argue that it was more because she was the lesser evil. She didn't inspire people to vote for her as well, and the way the party treated Bernie made a lot of his supporters either not vote or vote for Trump. If Hillary at least went to more places to campaign and actually looked genuine instead of pandering, she might have gotten more votes. The emails and lies from Trump and conservatives didn't help, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference if Hillary did a better job.
Which politician was target of claims that he led a child pornography ring, hired hitmen and has a significant percentage of people shouting to lock him up due to an almost completely made up incident?
The only person who got close to those levels was obama, and obama had his own populism (change) at work in his first election and, yes, was a good showman.
You basically tell me clinton is a horrible candidate because she is no showman and no change candidate.
That however would make any established politician a horrible candidate from now on, and that seems kinda nonsensial.
Because any established candidate has done some mistake at some point in his career which can be exploited just like benghazi (or simply you can make up things and people will believe them to be true).
It means that noone will become president who is not as good of a showman as your average latenight host or promises radical change which he in all likelyhood cannot deliver, and that is a pretty bad picture of the future of US politics.
Trump is dangerous, especially as a symbol of hatred to rally behind. These increases in hate crimes and crimes against Trump supporters are mainly because of Trump and his hateful rhetoric. He has power, he can fuck us over just to become richer and skirt the law, and anyone who says Trump isn't dangerous is fooling themselves.
Which politician despite those claims won the popular vote? Despite accusations of playing a part in a pedophilia ring, the emails, Benghazi, and Bernie, Hillary still won the popular vote. If she put in more effort and showed like she actually cared, then maybe we'd be seeing President Hillary. Maybe we'd be seeing President Hillary if she or dems didn't try their corrupt and biased nonsense. She was literally against one of the most incompetent, piece of shit candidate, and she still ultimately lost.
No, I'm saying Hillary is a horrible person, which is why she lost. It's not showman or change, but the fact that she didn't seem to care about anything but winning. Even if she cared, the image she gave off was different.
Trump is a huge issue because he can appoint the wrong people, like he's doing, to power. The right wings' fucked up ways of thinking can become a reality and affect so many people, even if Trump himself doesn't do much with policies. Only way he wouldn't be that big of an issue is if he fought against or shot down most things his choices want to pass.
Again, Hillary lost because of her and dems' ways. Blaming "character assassination" is dumb, especially when it's happened to many politicians who still won. Hillary still won the popular vote, but one would argue that it was more because she was the lesser evil. She didn't inspire people to vote for her as well, and the way the party treated Bernie made a lot of his supporters either not vote or vote for Trump. If Hillary at least went to more places to campaign and actually looked genuine instead of pandering, she might have gotten more votes. The emails and lies from Trump and conservatives didn't help, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference if Hillary did a better job.
I still see Trump as a dangerous person, but what I'm saying is that the people he appoints are far more potent than what Trump himself is doing. I pointed out an example like Bush and Cheney: Bush was a terrible President, but Cheney is the worst scumbag in a Human Being body.
I didn't said character assassination was the main cause of Hillary and the Democrats to lose. Of course most of the blame goes to the Party because of how they screwed over the people; there were many parts and bits that really did contribute to their fall.
I still see Trump as a dangerous person, but what I'm saying is that the people he appoints are far more potent than what Trump himself is doing. I pointed out an example like Bush and Cheney: Bush was a terrible President, but Cheney is the worst scumbag in a Human Being body.
I didn't said character assassination was the main cause of Hillary and the Democrats to lose. Of course most of the blame goes to the Party because of how they screwed over the people; there were many parts and bits that really did contribute to their fall.
Point being: Trump is bad, but people he hires in his administration is far worse than himself. Just like Bush was a bad president, but he's nowhere near as bad as Cheney.
" thing. Hillary did a poor job throughout the campaign, and to deny that would be to live in a delusion. 
