Sfdebris.net

Fixer wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote: She deserves bad things happening to her.

Such as? She's gone down in history as the candidate that lost to Trump and she's also married to Bill Clinton.

To paraphrase Red Dwarf.
She's only guilty of being Hillary Clinton. That is her crime. It is also her punishment.

Voted fro Iraq, created chaos and misery under Obama...etc

What was explicitly her fault in her four years of SecState? I mean, the "Chaos and misery"?

Agent Vinod wrote:Voted fro Iraq, created chaos and misery under Obama...etc

Disagreeing with her vote on Iraq is reasonable...she herself regrets it. But she has lots and lots of company in that particular circle of hell. You will, of course, recall that when she cast that vote, 75% of Americans wanted to go to war in Iraq. I remember that era rather vividly, having been among the minority. I got shouted down a LOT that year.

But as for creating chaos and misery under Obama....I find myself agreeing with Steve. No, the world was not a utopia during her tenure, but that seems to me a rather unreasonable criteria for success. While I can point to a number of decisions she made that I might have done differently, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, on the whole she seems to have been a perfectly competent Secretary of State, perhaps even an excellent one. At the very least, she looks great compared to Tillerson, though admittedly that's a pretty low bar.

Fixer wrote: She's only guilty of being Hillary Clinton. That is her crime. It is also her punishment.

I read this by the Daily Beast yesterday.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-h ... ia=desktop

If you don't know, the Daily Beast is actually right leaning.

Rocketboy1313 wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote: I would love to see Hillary come in and be incredibly unpopular.

If she were to somehow become president they would find a way to blame her for President Trump.

Truth be told, she actually is responsible for him being president. A lot of the democratic voters that didn't vote, didn't vote because of her. Conversely, a lot of people that were undecided with what to vote, voted Trump to prevent Hillary from becoming president, as Trump was the only other choice (not that it really speaks for their intelligence, but if you have to decide between shit and shit, you should take the shit that is at least fun to watch while it burns down the country). Every way you look at it, Trump became president because Hillary was there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no single cause of Trump's Presidency, and anyone saying their is one is oversimplifying, either unintentionally or to push an agenda. The election was actually very close (tens of thousands of votes over three states, I believe), and their are several clear factors, any one of which could have plausibly tipped the results.

Off the top of my head:

-Hillary Clinton's baggage (some of it real, some the result of a three-decade-long smear campaign), as well as her lack of personal charisma.
-The Comey announcement about the emails, a week or so before election day.
-Bernie or Bust idiots and general third partier vote-splitting.
-Possibly voter suppression laws.
-Russian interference.

The most immediate and obvious one, however, is the undemocratic anachronism of the Electoral College, though, which once again went against the popular vote.

And of course, Trump only got as far as the nomination because of the deep and increasing bigotry, polarization, and "win at any costs" mentality of much of the Republican Party and the American Right, a process that has been going on at least since Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy, but which accelerated rapidly with 911, and then again with the 2008 recession, and the election of a Black President and the overall gradual erosion of traditional straight white male dominance.

And the fact that the opposition to him was divided between upwards of a dozen primary opponents, and that the media loved to give Trump endless airtime for ratings, didn't help either.

Although I do suspect that any other prominent national-level Democrat, running on the same platform, would have more likely than not wiped the floor with him.

Steve wrote:What was explicitly her fault in her four years of SecState? I mean, the "Chaos and misery"?

They don't run a single background check on the rebels of Libya or they knew what kind of people they were.

LittleRaven wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:Voted fro Iraq, created chaos and misery under Obama...etc

Disagreeing with her vote on Iraq is reasonable...she herself regrets it. But she has lots and lots of company in that particular circle of hell. You will, of course, recall that when she cast that vote, 75% of Americans wanted to go to war in Iraq. I remember that era rather vividly, having been among the minority. I got shouted down a LOT that year.

But as for creating chaos and misery under Obama....I find myself agreeing with Steve. No, the world was not a utopia during her tenure, but that seems to me a rather unreasonable criteria for success. While I can point to a number of decisions she made that I might have done differently, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, on the whole she seems to have been a perfectly competent Secretary of State, perhaps even an excellent one. At the very least, she looks great compared to Tillerson, though admittedly that's a pretty low bar.

We know how she was on gay marriage. Same thing with Iraq. She never took political risks that a moral person would.
Utopia was my criteria? Where did i state that? Like Hillary would have an easy time under Trump and the Trump media enviorement.

Agent Vinod wrote:We know how she was on gay marriage. Same thing with Iraq. She never took political risks that a moral person would.

Of course not. She's a politician. We have a word for politicians that take political risks based on moral stances - unemployed. People don't like politicians that take risks. They want politicians that look just like them, talk just like them. That's why Bernie could win comfortably in Delaware but get stomped in Georgia - he never learned to code switch.

Agent Vinod wrote:Utopia was my criteria? Where did i state that?

I was responding to your second criticism of her performance as SoS. "created chaos and misery under Obama..." You declined to specify exactly how she created misery, so all I had to go off of was that misery and chaos existed.

Fixer wrote:I saw brief clips of the Republican nomination debates. They were so clueless out of touch I couldn't believe any of them could become president.

As for the Dems, Bernie was their best shot but we know the DNC's corruption sabotaged that effort.

Frankly it seems that the West's modern political and media environment is practically built so that no-one competent or genuine has any real chance of getting elected.

They sabotaged the effort by underhandedly respecting the voters, those fiends.

Draco Dracul wrote: They sabotaged the effort by underhandedly respecting the voters, those fiends.

The kind of respect you have to resign over if it gets leaked.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ls-sanders

The DNC showed about as much respect to its voters as the back of a pimp's hand respects its hos.

America, you can do better.