How were the Dems conned or strong armed into selecting HRC as the Nominee ?

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Well over a year back, it was obvious to me that Hillary's campaign was over, due to the email issue alone http://www.politics.ie/forum/us-politics/240906-hillary-clintons-odd-use-private-email-will-end-her-campaign.html

Hillary was useless in the Clinton Whitehouse - as she was snarky and partisan ... and her Healthcare initiative was a huge wasted effort

In the Senate it was reasonably obvious that she was good at some of the wonk stuff ... but not a retail politician .... and she had an awful reputation for lying and dirty tricks

Indeed she fought very dirty against Barack Obama in the primaries - so much so tht creepy Sid was blocked from following her to State

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/politics/16emanuel.html?_r=0
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year.
Yet Creepy Sid was given a plum position with the CF ... and Creepy Sid got Hillary in a lot of trouble

Cheryl Mills did the email coverup from the get go ... a lawyerly coverup ...indeed she was involved in the Lewinsky nonsense
[video=youtube;VBe_guezGGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc[/video]


And herself and Bill made a lot of dough
For Hillary Rodham Clinton, Politics Is a Money-Making 'Family Business'
Memo shows Bill Clinton's wealth was tied to Clinton Foundation
How a Clinton insider used his ties to build a consulting giant - POLITICO

DWS and the DNC conspired against Sanders ...given how dirty the Clintons play ...one imagines younger contenders were turned off

Hillary was the Emperor with no clothes



How the heck did that mass delusion happen ? She is about the only top flight Dem that Trump could have been elected against ...echo chambers ...etc...how did it happen ?


cyp
 


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
1. Follow the money.
2. She was at the centre of a spiders web of jobs and influence for donors/backers. Most of the Podesta emails were about fixing their kids up with nice jobs.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
What Eagle said, she prostituted her self and her office for "cash for favours" or pay for play.

Same as it always was, no difference, corruption is corruption. She made the right noises for the arms industry to be on board, same for Israel and what she said in private meetings with bankers didn't tarry win what she was saying in public.

More of the same.

Donald promised the opposite but he'll play the game as well as any of them.

You have to ask?
 

Filibuster

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
583
That's the thing that I don't get. Yeah, Hillary is very much an establishment US politician and most of them are capable of providing the best democracy that money can buy. However, Trump has gone in there promising to be different and shake things up as an outsider, fighting for the little guy. He is a billionaire property developer who is basically in the elite of the elite, albeit it the tacky part.

There's a very strong possibility he's just won't deliver.

If you wanted a major shake up, Bernie was the candidate in this election. The democrats wrote him out of history though as he was just too radical for the donors and backers and those who were afraid of offending this mysterious centre ground.

Clinton's probably being painted in an unfairly bad light and a lot of stuff is being blown out of proportion. However, she was absolutely not the candidate for this gig and it has nothing to do with her gender. There are plenty really strong female potential candidates out there, if they looked around! The problem was largely down to the baggage from Bill's presidency and the fact that while she's well qualified, she's a very wooden communicator and comes across like a particularly dry university lecturer. Everyone knew this before she was selected, but they went ahead and put her forward anyway.

There are a lot of questions to be answered at the DNC about candidate selection and how the party operates and why they are pushing so far to the centre that they are alienating the people they should be bringing on board. You can't and shouldn't try to be everyone's ideal candidate - that is just a recipe for blandness.

Trump demonstrates one thing - Americans did not want bland this time around. They were looking for someone to shake things up and they most likely have gone for someone who is going to shake all the wrong things up and could do untold damage, but it just shows how dissatisfied they are with the status quo.

They were willing to overlook some pretty huge issues to elect an outsider. When you look at it, Trump isn't even a republican candidate nor is he even putting forward republican ideology - His promises are actually all about big government - spend on infrastructure, regulate to force companies to stay in the US, protectionism and somehow also cut taxes.

He's also completely incompatible with the religious fundamentalists, yet they overlooked that entirely.

I have a feeling this presidency isn't going to be 'as sold.' But, I don't think its going to be very positive for anyone involved other than Trump.
 
Last edited:

freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,295
We are the Clintons. We are entitled to be interested White House would suit up.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Were they conned? Or just somewhat bent?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,633
There was nobody else credible. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and is too far left even for the mainstream of that party, never mind the country. Joe Biden didn't run, for whatever reason. The Democrats seem to be pretty light on new talented national figures, it's anybody's guess who'll run in four years
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
There was nobody else credible. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and is too far left even for the mainstream of that party, never mind the country. Joe Biden didn't run, for whatever reason. The Democrats seem to be pretty light on new talented national figures, it's anybody's guess who'll run in four years
Yet Clinton who is more right wing than Trump by many measures (Trump has stuck up for blue collar workers in his campaign) and more connected to bankers and Wall Street and wars and has received endorsements from the most right wing Republicans - was rejected by the electorate. Strange indeed then how Obama got elected considering he was more left than Clinton was.
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,021
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
There was nobody else credible. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and is too far left even for the mainstream of that party, never mind the country. Joe Biden didn't run, for whatever reason. The Democrats seem to be pretty light on new talented national figures, it's anybody's guess who'll run in four years
Warren not quite the profile of Clinton though
 

ShinnerBot No.32564844524

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
4,043
This article covers it pretty well:


Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit


THE PARALLELS BETWEEN the U.K.’s shocking approval of the Brexit referendum in June and the U.S.’ even more shocking election of Donald Trump as president last night are overwhelming. Elites (outside of populist right-wing circles) aggressively unified across ideological lines in opposition to both. Supporters of Brexit and Trump were continually maligned by the dominant media narrative (validly or otherwise) as primitive, stupid, racist, xenophobic, and irrational. In each case, journalists who spend all day chatting with one another on Twitter and congregating in exclusive social circles in national capitals — constantly re-affirming their own wisdom in an endless feedback loop — were certain of victory. Afterward, the elites whose entitlement to prevail was crushed devoted their energies to blaming everyone they could find except for themselves, while doubling down on their unbridled contempt for those who defied them, steadfastly refusing to examine what drove their insubordination.

.....


The institutions and elite factions that have spent years mocking, maligning, and pillaging large portions of the population — all while compiling their own long record of failure and corruption and destruction — are now shocked that their dictates and decrees go unheeded. But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They’re going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture they regard — not without reason — as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.


.....


“Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”

.....

Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

.....

Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who — for very good reason — was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It’s astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate — are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

.....

Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller’s indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

....

a system of electronic surveillance purposely designed to be ubiquitous and limitless, including on U.S. soil.

Those who have been warning of the grave dangers these powers pose have often been dismissed on the ground that the leaders who control this system are benevolent and well-intentioned. They have thus often resorted to the tactic of urging people to imagine what might happen if a president they regarded as less than benevolent one day gained control of it. That day has arrived.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
There was nobody else credible. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and is too far left even for the mainstream of that party, never mind the country. Joe Biden didn't run, for whatever reason. The Democrats seem to be pretty light on new talented national figures, it's anybody's guess who'll run in four years
There were plenty credible candidates - though they would have had to built up their profile in advance ... and Clinton people would have gone for them and families .... Clinton people are even worse than the Moditariat

cyp
 

an modh coinniolach

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
1,299

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341
I'm sorry to disagree, but I think it's a load of rubbish.

Basically it's saying that she lost because she didn't appeal to a populist electorate.

It totally ignores the fact that she was plainly not a fit and proper person to hold any public office.

Across the decades, and from the time that she and her husband were lawyers in Arkansas, the pair of them had repeatedly demonstrated that they were liars and rogues.

When the electorate rejected her on Tuesday they weren't being populist, they were being resposible and prudent.

And some of those working-class voters had been soldiering in Afghanistan and Iraq; and every one of those had another thirty or forty people that were related to them or otherwise knew them. They weren't to be fooled with soft talk. They wanted an end to the corruption, the drone-wars and the constant destabilising and invading of other countries.


[video=youtube;FRXclsGBZss]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXclsGBZss[/video]
 

bormotello

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
12,301
White House staff is watching counting results
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
9,977
There was nobody else credible. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and is too far left even for the mainstream of that party, never mind the country. Joe Biden didn't run, for whatever reason. The Democrats seem to be pretty light on new talented national figures, it's anybody's guess who'll run in four years
What evidence there is says that Bernie would have beat Trump hands down, the Dems put this scumbag in the White house because they didn't want a clean candidate, the have potentially fupped their own country for political reasons, very similar to Cameron's political play ending in Brexit.

Donald Trump would have lost US election if Bernie Sanders had been the candidate | The Independent
 

bormotello

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
12,301
Bill Clinton decided to repeat what he did in Russia in 1996 and in some extent Jacques Chirac in 2002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996
a) force oligarchs to pay for Yeltsin
b) destroy by media the most popular opponent - Lebed
3) make by second choice dangerous populist (Zyuganov)
4) vote or lose

This time it failed
 


New Threads

Top