But he… wasn’t. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn’t “regular people put Hitler in power”, it’s “broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists”.
broken legislative systems are vulnerable to fascists
Lucky America doesn’t have a broken legislative sys… Oh no
At least we have a good judici…
Fuck.
We can rest easy knowing that the judiciary is subject to checks and b…
God damn it.
But i mean… at least there subject to some level of ethi…
Well fuck all of us.
But we don’t have a hoard of fascists frothing at the mouth, waiting for their…
Oh wait
We’re toast
No we aren’t. Antifascism was effective at stopping fascism in the US and UK.
was it?
i always thought that’s mostly because german fascists dragged both of those countries into war by attacking them, which caused severe backlash by proxy, and not really antifa being particularly effective in those countries.
explains why the U.S., despite having a large fascist movement at the time, reversed course and turned on fascism as an ideology (in public); they got attacked.
same in Britain; early attacks in the war, plus some lingering resentment from WWI, combined overcoming a push towards fascism…
I’d love to hear/read more about successful antifa movements in the UK/US, but that’s what I’ve always thought/read were the major reasons for failing fascist movements in those countries: other fascists…
it’s “broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists”.
She would know all about that. Bernie was killing Trump in the polls. Hilary was neck and neck with Trump.
The DNC cast their votes for who was going to General. A winner was announced. Everyone started to go to the announcement and for the only time in DNC history, the announcement was rescinded and everyone was broken up into different groups. Hilary staffers were observed scurrying around between groups. Then everyone was forced to vote again. THEN Hilary was declared the candidate going to General.
It was all live tweeted. It was all loudly publicized, but noone seemed to notice. Noone seemed to care.
Of course she is now going to make a historically inaccurate statement that casts actual democracy in a bad light.
That hag needs to stay under her rock.
I mean, there was a court case…
DNC’s lawyers used the legal defense that they’re a private party and can run anyone they want in the general, and because of that, it doesn’t matter if they influence a primary election.
They flat out said primary elections are just a performative act, and the judge agreed with them.
It’s their party, their candidate, and they only let the people vote as a courtesy.
Our “free” country has been run by two private institutions interested only in their own popularity for over 150 years.
We lose. Everything.
Which is correct if you look at the history of how primaries came to be. Parties simply nominating someone is exactly what used to happen. The first Presidential primaries started in 1901, and they still don’t even happen in every state. Plenty still use the caucus system, where a bunch of insiders (usually local people who have volunteered for the party in some capacity) take off a day from work to decide on a candidate. The caucus system has historically been far more susceptible tampering by powerful interests. It literally was a smoke filled room, and is where that metaphor started.
Primaries aren’t some system enshrined in the Constitution or anything. It’s just how both parties have evolved over time. The general population gets its say in the election later on. The system now is far more democratic than the one that existed 200 years ago (with the caveat that we don’t have to stop with progress here).
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008 if the caucus system was still the norm. The leaders of the party wanted Hillary.
That said, I think this approach would work better if there were more than two viable parties. If you don’t like who the Democrats nominated, look the Green Party or Progressives Party or Send Billionaires to Guillotines Party. If they all put a candidate out there selected by party insiders, that’s fine, just vote in the general for whomever you think is the best out of a wide range of options. It’s far harder for corrupt party insiders to game the system in this scenario–for example, it’d be harder to have a place in all parties and setup the candidates you want so you win no matter what. It’s only a problem because we have exactly two parties that matter. Treating multiple parties as private organizations who can nominate whomever they want under any system they want would be fine.
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008
Nope, Obama dominated the cactus states…
https://www.infoplease.com/us/government/elections/campaign-2008-primary-and-caucus-results
That’s not the only thing you just said that I disagree with, it’s just an objective fact and it’s pretty much what the rest of your comment is based on.
Roll back to where caucus were 100 years ago. Obama would not have won those. That system was more grossly corrupt.
Yeah, if you had said something completely different you might not have been wrong, I agree with that.
But what you did say, is objectively wrong.
Except that I was quite clearly citing historical context in everything.
I actually think I vaguely remember this.
Thanks for reminding me.
Don’t forget that there are many, many appointed superdelegates who each have around 8,000 voting power each.
There were 618 pledges from DNC superdelegates in the 2016 nomination, equaling 4,944,000 voting power (meaning votes equivalent to ~5 million regular voters in the DNC). These are not delegates assigned to states but to specific groups and people in positions in the DNC itself.
For reference, 16,917,853 of the popular vote itself went to Hilary Clinton and 13,210,550 went to Bernie Sanders according to this eye cancer of a website. If all of the DNC superdelegates voted for Bernie Sanders, he would have won the 2016 DNC primaries, even though the DNC voters regardless that the actual regular DNC voters voted for Hilary.
Anyway, I’m only making a point that system was broken.
The DNC did reform this afterwards, in that, if the first ballot doesn’t have an absolute majority then superdelegates will cast votes but otherwise, cannot (as a superdelegate).
Nice rundown.
At the end of the day, I think the United States is just too damn big to run this type of system.
Red states are so entrenched in their beliefs and blue states are so entrenched in theirs, there is no way to cap them off with one cohesive federal government.
By design, every advancement is a crucial blow to the other side.
And then the real rub.
We have been at it long enough that there are not 2 parties. There is one mob of selfish egotistical asshats who struggle and toil keep federal office the best place to get richer and more powerful.
We keep calling it a government divided. IT ISNT. They are of one mind, taking a foot but making sure not to take a yard. Giving up a foot but making sure not to lose a yard. And every time the ball moves one half of The mindless masses feel validated, one half of The mindless masses feel violated, and the whole effort had an earmark on page 1672 of 3000 that assraped EVERYONE except the rich and the politician.
My betting money is on the fact that we will crumble like the USSR before I die. No grand civil war two electric Boogaloo. Just a pathetic crumbling.
The difference between US and the USSR is that we don’t have a pre USA history/culture to fall back on.
Not sure entirely about that. Nazis were still a party that held up to 44% of seats in the reichstag (before they were all nazi) with like 6 different parties. Hitler wasn’t isolated. The population voted for him and his party. Hindenburg didn’t like Hitler but essentially passed away at a terrible time and Hitler outplayed Papen who was meant to keep him in check. Hindenburg felt he had to since they had the closest to a majority in the reichstag.
"In the end, the president, who had previously vowed never to let Hitler become chancellor, appointed Hitler to the post at 11:30 am on 30 January 1933, with Papen as vice-chancellor.[91] While Papen’s intrigues appeared to have brought Hitler into power, the crucial dynamic was in fact provided by the Nazi Party’s electoral support, which made military dictatorship the only alternative to Nazi rule for Hindenburg and his circle. [Sauce]
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the “seizure of power” (“Machtergreifung” in German), because Hitler wasn’t simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. “Machtergreifung” is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didn’t have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn’t that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term “Machtergreifung” was avoided by the Nazis, they used “Machtübernahme” as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But “Machtergreifung” is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in “only” at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system don’t quite apply, because it was never Hitler’s goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as “Machtübergabe” (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.
You really expect a politician to tell the truth, especially when it comes to history? She and the rest of the US political elite for decades now are just mouthpieces for interest groups, mostly military groups who make money with wars abroad. Together with the media, they sell you wars abroad, while waving any currently popular flag at home for votes. The US elections are so loud, you don’t hear the sounds of pain and misery those events create abroad, especially in Middle East.
After the reports of Israeli invasion in Gaza, the first smile I saw in media was that of Hillary. When the wars and killings across northern Africa and Middle East started during the Arab Spring, her smile was the most prominent one for months.
Every time this slime of a human being crawls out of a crack in the wall in Washington somewhere, a war is either being prepared or needs justifying for the american voters. All that with a smile, while the cameras are rolling.
Manufactured concent is a bitch.
That’s super interesting. I did not know that
deleted by creator
I get it, but this take fucking worries me, dawg. The last time the Democrats played the “I don’t have to try and appeal to you because the other guy is Hitler, lol” card, ‘Hitler’ won. It’s even a little on the nose that this is coming from Hillary. I’m worried that they’re falling into the same intellectually and politically bankrupt trap as in 2016, that they’re aware that they don’t have a meaningful platform besides “we’re not republicans”, and that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is enough. The republicans of 2020 and 22 also had that same absence of platform, absence of appeal, and just trying to coast on party brand, and look where that got them. Shit is on fire, we don’t have time for these dumb fuck games, let alone for Trump to win again. C’mon guys, don’t fuck this up.
They’re always going to fuck up. That’s what they do. Most of them belong in retirement communities yet for whatever reason think they have what it takes to run a government. They’re disconnected from reality yet expect to appeal to regular people, who have to suffer in the reality they’ve created?
Expect more shitshows.
The grassroots efforts are the only reason Dems enjoying their recent victories. Hard-working people who want to see progress. We’d be looking at a red Congress if not for them, and I look forward to when the DNC is irrelevant, too.
Grassroots movements have been getting shit on since at least the 70’s trying to get people to vote for the lesser of two evil parties. Look where we ended up.
It’s crazy to me people keep trying to fix the Democratic party instead of just letting that corrupt tower of shit collapse. You got people like Hillary Clinton at the top. Nothing will ever change there but a little bread and circus here and there.
It’s crazy to me people keep trying to fix the Democratic party instead of just letting that corrupt tower of shit collapse.
I agree, but I don’t know how we could do that and not essentially hand the election to Republicans. Republicans might be shit, but since at least the Southern Strategy, they’ve created a reliable voting bloc who vote based on party affiliation, personality, or single issues.
The only way forward I can see is to incrementally change the foundation (from local up), so that toppling the top doesn’t have such a dramatic effect.
If you’re never willing to lose one election then nothing will change.
The democratic party is just like the republican one extremely rotten from the inside. The people at the top
You see people at the white house quitting left right and center right now, all saying that trying to change the existing system has been a waste of decades of their life and they have just given up on it.
https://youtu.be/2htDCcqDW0I?si=4C9aXziHgs3CfYkM
You cannot change a power structure from the bottom if the people at the top have proven to be unwilling for change.
Sure you can. It’s already happening. Just look at all the local wins we just had. Even if we have to build something better from the inside out, that’s the only way forward, imo.
Local wins sure. At the small scale you can do a shuffle here and there. But at the top there are certain rules such as forced support of israel and they will immediately shut down any dissedence and protest against them.
Maybe this video of the same guy that just quit where he goes in depth about it will provide you more insight.
Completely agree, the DNC is far too corrupt to change from within. We need to let them fail, and fail hard, to drive home the need for a new progressive party. This could happen within one election cycle, but thanks to the extremely dangerous game played by these establishment politicians, that likely means Trump 2.0. We’ve been put in an impossible position but I also think there’s no better time than now.
When she called them deplorables they ate it up. She just needs to not stick her nose in.
yeah, i came here to post that she is not the person to voice this. anyone currently supporting trump isn’t going to suddenly switch sides to his opponent in the original race, it actually just weakens the argument.
If she’s not going to suck republican voter dick, anything she says, no matter how true right now is only going to do damage. She needs to shut her trap, go back to being irrelevant, and continue to consider herself lucky that she and Bill still never went to jail over Whitewater…
I think even that would just confirm their opinion of her, lol
People don’t like smart women. Especially when they are right. It’s something culturally strange about the US.
I think smart women are great. I assume she’s educated but she is neither wise or likable.
deleted by creator
It’s even a little on the nose that this is coming from Hillary. I’m worried that they’re falling into the same intellectually and politically bankrupt trap as in 2016, that they’re aware that they don’t have a meaningful platform besides “we’re not republicans”, and that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is enough.
The irony is that… progressives absolutely do have a solid platform that people generally support. by people, I’m excluding Hilary’s and Biden’s Corporate Donors. Sorry, I don’t have to respect Citizens United.
Biden’s Corporate Donors.
These people must have hated it when Biden created a 15% minimum corporate tax rate.
These people must have hated it when Biden created a 15% minimum corporate tax rate.
If the status quo is any indication, corporate tax rules are largely performative. I would be happy to be wrong about that and see actual enforcement happen as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/
There is some detailed guidance about the CAMT I found here, but someone with more specific knowledge will have to parse through it to determine how easily they are gonna be able to dodge this, too.
These people must have hated it when Biden created a 15% minimum corporate tax rate.
If the status quo is any indication, corporate tax rules are largely performative.
First of all NO tax increase is ever “performative”. That is a completely meaningless sentence. 2nd, you obviously don’t understand how rare and difficult it is to increase taxes. 3rd, you obviously don’t understand how critical it is to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Did you click through to the first article I linked? I called them performative because corporations just exploit loopholes to avoid paying their dues anyway.
I understand the importance of raising taxes on the wealthy. However, I also understand that those efforts will be meaningless if they aren’t backed up on the enforcement side.
These people must have hated it when Biden created a 15% minimum corporate tax rate. There’s enough loopholes that they didn’t care all that much. It only affects companies that net over a billion dollars in profit to start with, and then there’s the question of… do they actually pay the taxes they currently owe? (answer: they do not.)
It’s not like they were paying the ostensible 12% taxes they owed before.
The entire point of the 15% MINIMUM tax rate is that their are no loopholes around it.
It’s not like they were paying the ostensible 12% taxes they owed before.
You know nothing about taxes. The rate was reduced by Convicted Rapist Treason Trump from 34% to the current 20%.
It’s not Biden’s fault that you don’t understand or pay attention to crucial current events.
You know nothing about taxes. The rate was reduced by Convicted Rapist Treason Trump from 34% to the current 20%. apple’s tax rate the last 3 years, from their '22 10k:
from microsoft’s '23 10k:
Tesls '23 10k:
Do go on about how the current tax is 20%.
now lets talk about the 15%- the biggest and most obvious loop hole is that it only applies to corporations that make more than 1 billion in earnings. Which, is actually relatively few. and if you can’t think of a way around that for the few that are there, then you probably shouldn’t be talking. I can think of a few ways. The easiest is to fork off functional sections into subsidiaries (which then pay their own taxes)
but under no circumstances did Biden do that without his corpo benefactors giving him the go ahead to do so in the first place. Because money is speech and corporations are people… and corporations have a helluvalotta “speech” to give. either to biden or his competitor.
deleted by creator
he was speaking in Congress in favor of abolishing all social safety nets with extreme prejudice
That never happened. You made it up.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s not an accident. The country is moving left, and the right-wing Democrats are afraid of losing control of the party. They almost did, twice. They don’t take the “the other guy is Hitler” rhetoric seriously, themselves. They aren’t worried about losing their power if the Republicans win the Whitehouse, or even both branches of Congress, because it’s all one big club, and they won’t be kicked out, as long as they go along to get along, but they are terrified that a leftist rise will take the reigns of the Democratic party from them, and then they really will be out of power.
The thing those people don’t understand is that they think democracy is a goal onto itself, instead of a means to an end. A good chunk of the population would happily get rid of democracy in order to have someone in power ‘who can just get stuff done’. Especially since said democracy is ridiculously unresponsive to the will of the people.
Compare the polling on the Gaza conflict compared to what members in the house are saying, for example. Or any other super popular thing (legalising weed, taxing the wealthy, not running a global empire that constantly gets involved in wars,…)
And, for the record, Hillary, Hitler never got over 50% of the vote, it was other, so-called democratic parties that gave him the Chancellor job. They could’ve created a different governing coalition, but they thought they could control him.
deleted by creator
Well, the issue with electing one of those people is that you usually can’t vote them out again. It’s definitely not a good move, but when people are desperate enough and they feel ignored by their representatives, they’ll roll that dice.
Dems lose because dems gamble. They always pick some rando as VP instead of the person who got the second most votes in the primary. They should’ve gotten rid of the electoral college when Gore lost. They keep running and electing excruciatingly old people who might die or go senile in the middle of everything (Biden, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc.).
They’re gonna fuck it up.
Honestly, I truly believe that both Democratic and Republican politicians benefit from all the bullshittery going on - so of course they’ll actually do nothing to improve the situation for America’s citizens. As long as they get money and they get paid, they’ll say and do whatever the fuck they can, including fucking things up for us.
Probably not much better across the pond, but I am finding myself more and more looking up how to become a UK citizen because at least they have less zany shit going on from what I can tell.
both Democratic and Republican politicians benefit from all the bullshittery going on
They absolutely don’t. They just have a very short term view because of reelection cycles and fundraising needs. You’d think their capitalist masters would also realize this increasing polarization and dissatisfaction with the status quo is going to make the line go down, but nobody ever accused economic liberals of actually being aware when the noose was tightening on their necks.
You had me in the first half until you brought up the UK. The UK? Seriously?!
deleted by creator
I get this, but at the same time, we are also seeing a ton of fallout from those 4 years that’s all currently in the spotlight, which is something we didn’t have in 2016. So despite what she is saying, I think a lot of people are actually seeing the mess, and at least some people are switching sides due to it all. Hoping that the mix of everything really does help next year, last night’s elections were a good sign of it if you ask me but we know they now have a year to pivot and try to change. Thankfully, most of the people in their own party can’t even agree on much either.
Hillary is toxic to the brand. The Democrats would be wise to keep her at arms distance.
It’s a little sad because decades of right-wing anti-Hillary propaganda not only proved effective, but it noticeably altered Hillary into this jaded cynic completely lacking in vision or idealism. I’m not a huge Hillary fan, but the vast majority of the hate is completely manufactured outrage. That being said it doesn’t change what you said being valid.
You can see them trying with AOC, but I suspect it won’t yield the same results.
Dude she was a McGovern girl. She has always been an empty husk seeking power and validation
She was a Goldwater Girl, which is orders of magnitude worse. McGovern would have been a massive improvement from Nixon.
There’s always been this weird push from her supporters that’s anyone who doesn’t like her is either a misogynist or fell for propaganda.
They just refuse to admit she has any faults.
Supporters get awful quiet when you ask about her continued defense of her husband’s misconduct and alleged sexual assaults. They get down right silent when you ask about her attacking his accusers.
I still believe she was offered the Democratic nomination (in the future) in exchange for not pulling the rug out from under Bill.
Those same people are beginning to do that with Kamala too. Thankfully it’s not as widespread yet.
She did a good enough job maligning herself, she didn’t need the Republicans to do it for her. The entire DNC primary was a shitshow of Clinton debasing the primaries and showing what she would do for power.
but it noticeably altered Hillary into this jaded cynic completely lacking in vision or idealism
it noticeably altered hillary clinton into hillary clinton
There’s a bunch of stances she’s taken I view negatively but admit there’s nuance.
Then there’s DOMA. Anyone on that let it be known their principles for marginalized groups is only “as convenient”, which means support of them should also only be as is convenient or useful. She is no longer convenient or useful.
It’s weird because I can distinctly remember after 2008 that she was looked on favorably, as secretary of state. People made fun memes about her and found her likeable. Fox News really did a number on her.
She was always the slimiest neoliberal around, and she walked up on stage and said shit like “women supporting women means you have to vote for me”
Hilary was respected because she got stuff done and mostly only spoke to the ownership class. She was never liked, and the more people saw her speak the less people liked her
Let’s not forget, she made deals to get the presidency. She burned the trust and local campaign funds of the Democratic party just to lose.
Fox wasn’t charitable to her, but chanting “lock her up” didn’t ruin her image, she did a great job of that herself who looked deeper than sound bites
deleted by creator
Clinton is infinitely more intelligent and effective than aoc has proven to be though. Clinton gets hated on because she was good at her job, aoc gets hated on for being a brown chick.
Good at her job as long as her job was to be a centrist hack that allowed the political spectrum to shift farther to the right. What a joke.
Someone couldn’t find a photo of her looking less…Palpatine-y?
You’re welcome to try, but it might take awhile…
I could try wrestling a grizzly bear too but I find it’s better to criticize from a distance.
Give in to your hate. Feel the powah!
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
Edit: Sorry, downvoters; it is what it is.
An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.
In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.
Ah, the real reason people hate WikiLeaks. It exposed the truth, but rather than focus on the truth people focused on the messenger.
My brother in OSRS, they had emails from the Republican Party as well, but didn’t release them because they said there was nothing interesting in them. I don’t disagree at all that Clinton’s strategy was inappropriate, but there’s plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike WikiLeaks. Ironically, there’s a lack of transparency on them. They should’ve released the GOP emails.
WikiLeaks has a problem when we need a WikiLeaks for WikiLeaks.
My brother in Middle Earth, the hate started long before WikiLeaks allegedly had any Republican emails, and even searching for the subject now I can’t find anything that says WikiLeaks had them.
Edit: I found a source, reading it again pretty much tells the whole story (it wasn’t emails but “information on the Trump campaign”): https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him/
Oh of course some people said that. Doesn’t mean they’re right though. And even so, they should’ve released that information on the trump campaign
What information could they possibly have that is worse than what we already know about Trump? He could eat babies on stage and 30% of people would still vote for him.
Something like the Trump campaign bribing the RNC early on. You could have the exact same things going on that the DNC did.
I don’t think that would change anything. He’s done far worse than that, and quite brazenly.
Sadly the republicans had zero say in their slide to right wing extremism and could do nothing about it. It’s not like their flirtation with the Tea Party movement meant anything.
Yup, poor poor Republicans… They don’t actually agree with all the things they say on Facebook or memes they share, or political violence they wish for or enact. Poor Republicans, it was all the evil Democrats that made Republicans be who they are. It’s really a shame that they have absolutely no brain of their own that they just go with whatever the Democrats make them do. We should be lead by that party though, because they’re “free thinkers”
…wait
It’s not just Trump either they’ve used the strategy for many insane Republican primary candidates.
Repiblicans are maniacs and Democrats are retarded. Story as old as time.
Republicans are retarded maniacs and Democrats are gaslighting hypocrites who play dumb when called out on their bullshit.
It exposed the truth, but rather than focus on the truth people focused on the messenger.
In this case, the media also focused on the messenger and gave Hillary a pass on the actual contents of those e-mails.
Hilarious mistake.
I suppose this would have been effective if even a fraction of the Republican voterbase was reasonable.
Hilarious mistake.
The mistake wasn’t elevating Trump, but running in the first place.
There’s a very real chance she’d have lost to Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush in a non-Trump national campaign, simply because she was a weak candidate with an awful reputation in the Midwest. There’s a reason she struggled in the primary, both in 2008 and 2016, against a couple of political outsiders despite having an enormous financial and name-recognition advantage.
You can’t win the Presidency without Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. And Hillary was never going to win those states, under any alternative opponent. She lost Pennsylvannia, ffs. No viable Democrat loses Pennsylvania.
I’d like to say Trump would be too stupid to pull off a Hitler but the more I learn about Hitler the more I learn that he was by no means a bright man.
What you mean someone who wraps up their entire identity into hating minorities is a moron?
No, really?
I love how most of the comments here are about how much everyone hates Hillary rather than about what she actually said. I get it that people hate her, but let’s be real folks; Trump is the only relevant clear and present danger here. Bitching about Hillary seems pretty pointless at this point.
I hear you. What she said is correct. The thing is, this person is so unlikeable that there’s no way she can help. No matter how sharp you are, or how good of an elected official you’ll be (and I do think she would have been extremely good at her job if she was elected (I did vote for her)), you must have charisma to be effective in politics.
I honestly believe in my heart that if she paid millions for widespread TV ads with her saying “do not vote for Donald Trump” it would help him.
What she said is correct.
But it’s not though. The sentiment is in the right place but she got her facts wrong.
Again, you are focusing on her rather than on what she actually said. That’s what I find so telling and unfortunate. Are we really so shallow and politically inept that we can’t hear a message simply because we dislike the messenger?
It seems like you are telling me yes, that’s exactly how shallow and politically inept we are.
If so, that sucks, especially since you are almost certainly correct.
I am saying that I’m afraid, and I do believe it.
I’m not happy about it either man
Thank you!
Bitching about Hillary is how Trump got elected in the first place.
No, Hillary and the DNC rigging the primary is how trunp got elected in the first place. Bernie would have won.
Rigging the primaries by… adhering to the popular vote. Got it.
No, by ending the primaries early, and by feeding her debate questions in advance, and 15 other things I’ve forgotten by now that we saw proof of in her emails.
A Hillary win would have saved the Supreme Court. Now we are on precarious ground. There was no disadvantage in her winning
Let’s face it - had she won, things would be way better than they are, and we wouldn’t be in the constant fascist danger we are now.
Yep, you can blame the Dems and Clinton herself 100% for that one, given that we know Bernie would have won. She is directly responsible for things being as bad as they are.
given that we know Bernie would have won
You don’t know that at all. You didn’t see the playbook against him.
True, but to pretend the Democrats didn’t actively sabotage their most popular candidate in favor of the “safe” choice… twice… is a stretch.
I voted for Biden. Will vote again.
Voted for Hilary, too.
Not because I wanted to. Democrats don’t seem to want to do much beyond maintain the status quo, at least at the presidential level.
Bernie was not their most popular candidate. This is an internet Fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Graphical_summary_of_polling
It makes my head spin that people think Bernie lost because he couldn’t overcome the most standard political maneuverings of the Democrats, and yet he would somehow overcome the political maneuverings of the Republican party which plays far dirtier than the Democratic party does. Does everyone forget the Bush Campaign spreading rumors that John McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually an illegitimate Black child from an affair? Or how about when they turned John Kerry’s service in Vietnam into a something he only did for fame?
Shut the fuck up you old hag, you and your party got him elected by running ads supporting him and fucking Bernie in the primaries. Why can’t she just fucking die already
Yeah, I don’t want to see or hear about Hilary Clinton anymore. She pushed her way in and fucking lost to Trump.
The fact that she lost the 2008 primary to Obama (basically unknown at that stage) should’ve been a clue that she’s deeply unpopular and unelectable.
Part of it is because of decades of right wing smears, but part of it is also because she can sound very out of touch at times.
Yep, it fucking sucks that the GOP propaganda machine spent decades convincing people she was Satan in the flesh, but they did, and it was completely bullheaded to think that could be undone. Especially during an election that was clearly taking a populist tone when she had at that point become the face of the establishment for so many. Goddamn it I still can’t believe we’re in this shit timeline
She comes across incredibly inauthentic, like she’s playing a character. A lot of people pick up on that easily, which is why it’s so easy for people to not like her, regardless of her political positions
deleted by creator
Remember when they rigged the primaries and were like “yeah, we can do whatever we want. This isn’t the REAL election yet!” And then they never got court time? Do we really have a choice on who to vote for?
They…literally can, though? The primaries are not part of the election process outlined in the Constitution. They don’t have to have primaries at all.
The DNC and RNC are not government entities, they’re private organizations.
The DNC and RNC are not government entities, they’re private organizations.
Then why the fuck do they get privileged support from the state for their primaries?
The answer is that the process is fucking corrupt, and they need to either actually be treated as the powerless private entities they claim to be (i.e. zero involvement in any elections whatsoever – primaries shouldn’t be a thing, and candidates on the general election ballot shouldn’t even have a party listed next to their name) or they need to be held accountable as the de-facto government entities they are.
Or they need to be destroyed entirely outright; that’s fine too!
For fuck’s sake, even the Republicans can run a fair vote, nobody in the RNC wanted Trump but when they counted the votes, there it was. The DNC couldn’t run a vote properly if the UN sat at the polling stations and scrutinized the polls. The massive fuckery that occurred during her “coronation” was obvious and disgusting.
I mean, they can eschew primaries and just appoint whatever candidate they want. But their voters might not like that.
Not that Democrats have ever given a shit what their voters want.
The best thing Hilary Clinton can do is shut the fuck up and go away
“You know, I hated losing, and I especially hated losing to him because I had seen so many warning signals during the campaign,” Clinton said.
Oh you did? Then maybe you should have fucking campaigned like you were running against a fascist instead of strolling casually to your inevitable coronation.
All the negative anti-Hillary comments in this thread aside, please vote responsibly in 2024.
We cannot afford another 2016 situation again.
Maybe a politicker who brags about being mentored by Henry Kissinger, a war-criminal whose record matches that of Heinrich Himmler himself, shouldn’t be referencing Hitler.
“matches that of Heinrich Himmler”, you mean the head of the SS and one of the main people behind the holocaust?
Have you ever considered that your life, and life in general would be better if you didn’t have such absurd and shrill opinions?
There is one way in which Himmler and Kissinger differs… Himmler at least had the backbone to go and witness the results of his policies in person - specifically, the Babi Yar massacre in Ukraine. Kissinger never did go see for himself the gargantuan atrocities he had “achieved” in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Timor, and Chile.
Oh, I forgot the other way Kissinger and Himmler differs… Himmler was hanged - Kissinger got off scott-free. So there’s that.
👏
What like to the front? Do you know of other secretaries of state who went to the front?
Do you know of other secretaries of state who went to the front?
Yeah… they don’t really like dirtying themselves with the mess they cause, do they?
so you really REALLY do not understand the brutality of the Holocaust then, and less so the history of the sub-chinease peninsula, and Pinochet couldn’t hold a candle to what Himmler did
Trying to hide your hero’s crimes behind the Holocaust, are we? Just like your fascist friends over in occupied Palestine?
Try harder.
Jesus christ dude. Calm down.
Did you see me at any point not being calm?
Yeah when you start throwing accusations of fascism at random posters, that’s pretty riled up behavior. Nobody but you is talking about Isreal vs Palestine in this thread. Not a single person you responded to said kissinger was a good guy. You can compare atrocities and acknowledge they’re all atrocities.
Unfortunately, the American education system just kinda gives up teaching history after 1945. Otherwise, you might be more familiar with the US State Department sponsored coups and subsequent genocides in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and the Pacific Rim over the subsequent 40 years.
Kissinger absolutely was administering mass arrests and executions in US client states, from the overthrow of democracies in Iran and Egypt to the massacres of dissidents in Jakarta and Rio de Janeiro and Santiago to the arming of the Khmer Rouge and subsequent bombings in Laos and Cambodia. Say what you will about Himmler, but he only really had the reigns of a mid-sized European industrial power for a decade. Kissinger was instrumental in steering truly nightmarish foreign policies on an international scale for four times as long.
And when you look at how folks like Kerry and Clinton and Blinken consistently turn to the Kissinger playbook to advance US foreign policy in the modern day, he’s got even more blood on his hands by proxy than that.
I don’t know of anyone who thinks we can or should stop every genocide. Kissinger didn’t lead these things you’re talking about, or at least the things I I think you’re talking about. And he wasn’t unique in his views. Kissinger is not comparable to Himmler, this is a ridiculous post, shallow. .
I think Kissinger and everyone in the foreign service and executive branch who helped execute American foreign policy thought was that if two violent factions were going to kill each other, America might as well back the one it thinks it can work with to advance it’s foreign policy goals. Kissinger wasn’t a wizard. He couldn’t make the north and south Vietnamese stop killing each other. You don’t have to like it to pick a strategic interest and choose a side.
It’s called realpolitik.
Jesus fucking Christ, you think supporting fascist coups on democratically elected governments is just pragmatism?
kissinger lost his glasses in a toilet so he can’t talk
probably couldn’t see too well, after that, either.
Probably couldn’t see before too well either, hence the need for glasses.
I guess you’re one of those people who day that Hamas is exactly the same as, and has been doing the exact same as Hitler?
Nuanced, very nuanced…
I guess you’re one of those people who day that
HamasIsrael is exactly the same as, and has been doing the exact same as Hitler?FTFY.
No, I’m not one of those people. Israel prefers Willy Pete to Zyklon-B, for instance - so there is a difference, I guess.
Calling Israel the same as hitler may be funny on an “I’m 15 and this is edgy” level, but it’s ignorant as fuck to claim that. Yes, the Israeli has committed and continues to commit atrocious acts, but it’s leagues away from what the Nazis did. It’s not even in the same ballpark.
Same goes for Hamas. It’s a horrible terror organization, it holds zero candles to hitler and his buddies
hitler may be funny on
No, Clyde - I don’t find genocide a laughing matter whether it’s nazis or zionists doing it.
It’s not even in the same ballpark.
Really? You don’t think there’s any correlation between the nazis’ genocidal concept of “lebensraum” and that which Israel is doing in Palestine?
it holds zero candles to hitler and his buddies
Funny you should mention that… it doesn’t hold a candle to Israel when it comes to terrorism, either.
I don’t think that, when comparing two large systems, it’s okay to take two specific items that I “like” and compare only those two.
Israel and Nazi Germany are not comparable. Comparing them and then worse, finding them quite equal is just 15 years old levels of dumb and ignorance
Israel and Nazi Germany are not comparable.
Tell me you don’t understand how right-wing ideology works without telling me you don’t understand how right-wing ideology works.
Noting the differences between Israel and Nazi Germany displays just how similar they actually are - unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is utterly dependent on the west (and in particular the US) for literally it’s day-to-day existence and therefore cannot pursue the policies it wants to pursue with zero constraints as Nazi Germany finally did when it launched it’s genocidal colonialism project in 1941.
The incremental genocide Israel has been perpetrating since 1949 is purely a matter of geopolitical pragmatism - but the ideological drivers of said genocdie is no different to those that drove Nazi Germany.
Yeah, no.
You lost perspective. Badly. Israel is bad. Really bad. Everybody will agree with that.
However, comparing Israel with the industrialized mass murder of Nazi Germany is just bullshit. It shows that you don’t understand Israel , Nazi Germany or (most likely) both.
Nazi Germany damn near exterminated Jews, gays, Romani, etc. Israel can’t hold a candle to the horrors of nazi Germany.
Please go read a history book
Hamas is exactly the same as, and has been doing the exact same as Hitler?
A small paramilitary organization operating in occupied territory is doing the exact same as the Chancellor of a European industrial powerhouse?
I’m always a bit surprised when some terminally online guy tries to give people in Hamas this much credit.
Small paramilitary organization? Okay guys, we can call Isreal out for genocide while still acknowledging Hamas as a terrorist group that slaughtered 1,000 civilians, plus whatever else since then.
Hamas and Isreal both suck. The only people I care about are the civilians and dead kids.
Okay guys, we can call Isreal out for genocide
Can we? I heard that was anti-semitism.
Hamas and Isreal both suck.
One is a paramilitary response to the suffocating violent occupation of the other. Might as well denounce the Vietcong, the Spanish Republicans, or Nate Turner Slave Revolt as Terrorists. You wouldn’t be the first.
But to equate the two is to equate the symptom with the illness. Even the fucking Times of Israel acknowledges that the Hamas movement is the direct result of Netanyahu’s domestic policies. The Palestinian Authority has been denuded of all legal agency in a territory they cannot govern thanks to Israeli sanctions. Gaza hasn’t had an election since 2006. There is no way for anyone in the territory to survive, absent the black markets and smuggling corridors maintained by Hamas paramilitary.
This is a deliberate consequence of the stated policies of the Israeli government.
So both Hamas and the IDF are creatures of the Israeli government. The only way to resolve this conflict is to effect regime change in Israel.
The only people I care about are the civilians and dead kids.
The only way to achieve that is a ceasefire. And Israel will not implement a ceasefire until its leadership is removed.
And yet, you have no problem using electronics built with slave labor.
Bit of a false assumption, isn’t that? There is no ethical consumption under Capitalism, so trying to advocate for better while participating in an unjust system is a requirement for many people.
There’s no ethical way to run a nation. Lincoln was barely able to free the slaves and FDR couldn’t end segregation. Hilary listening to Kissenger doesn’t mean she supports everything he ever did.
Listening to him, okay.
Repeatedly, publicly, referring to him as a dear friend and invaluable mentor is another thing entirely.
It’s called ‘politics.’
People in politics say nice things about people they hate all the time.
Ronald Reagan hated Jimmy Carter with a passion. Here’s Reagan speaking about Carter at the opening of Carter’s Presidential Library.
Politics is the art of making deals with those you abhor. If they have to blather on and on about good fellowship that’s just the oil that keeps the machine operating.
Demanding that every politician agree 100% is how the GOP managed to shut down the goverment so many times.
I always remember NYC Mayor Ed Koch’s joke. “If you agree with me 51% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time, seek therapy.”
Taken entirely generally, your points are uncontroversial and common knowledge. But if you’re suggesting Hillary Clinton does not genuinely admire and feel personal friendship for Henry Kissinger, I believe you are mistaken.
I also did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that she “supports everything he ever did”. In replying to your earlier comment which contained that phrase, I was by no means intending to claim that HRC was a completely uncritical supporter of literally every action of HK.
You know, it’s possible to be friends with people who are bad without being bad yourself.
Back in the day, the most successful Socialist politician in US history was Fiorella LaGuardia. He ran for New York City mayor on a Fusion ticket, getting support from a wide range of parties, including the GOP. f he’d had a purity test for everyone, he’d have never gotten elected.
There’s no ethical way to run a nation. Lincoln was barely able to free the slaves and FDR couldn’t end segregation.
A hard, bitter truth
Hilary listening to Kissenger doesn’t mean she supports everything he ever did.
Absolute bullshit.
that is one of the dumbest thing I have read today, and I looked at Reddit’s hot page today,
are you REALLY going to equivocate anything the US did to the fucking Holocust? fuck, even what they did to the Native Americans can’t hold a candle to that shit, most natives died to disease, almost all Jews/Sinti/Roma/Disabled/Openly Left-wing/Gay/trans died to systematic industrialized execution on a scale that can sparsely be comprehended.
I think you replied to the wrong person. All I said was that I don’t think Hilary Clinton personally approved of Kissinger’s bombing South East Asia.
Does someone have the comic?
Oh, look… another Holocaust apologist.
Can you tell me the name of the ethically sourced device you’re using?
I don’t discuss squat with genocide apologists.
:-/
If you really wanted to set off a riot, you could say you’re using a Huawei device. Then tear into these dorks by citing the peak standard of living of Chinese industrial workers relative to their global peers. No student debts. No medical debts. 90% of them own their own homes. Retirement at the age of 60 is the norm. Life expectancy that exceeds their Western peers. Higher GINI index ranking.
Lemmy.word hates China with a passion, and nothing drops napalm on a thread like mentioning how much better Chinese industrial workers have it than folks doing shift work in a Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky or Tijuana, Mexico, much less a Mississippi carpenter or some poor bastard doing contract machinist work in lead-contaminated Flint Michigan. And heaven help these bastards if they’re in the UK. People in that former heart of empire can’t even afford groceries, while folks in Pacific Rim states like Vietnam and Malyasia have grown fat and happy.
Neither do you, since you commented.
As you did, too. Almost as if no one is completely pure.
Yes, everybody is shades of grey bad. However if you are unable to make a distinction between say, Hilary Clinton bad and clown car Trump bad, then you have a problem
Then maybe they shouldn’t run with a genocide supporting senior citizen as a candidate
I was more caught on Hillary implying she’s less popular than Hitler.
You’re gonna have to be way more specific, that’s literally all of them.
Biden was my last choice in the 2020 primary, because I knew that whoever we chose would run for reelection. We were picking the President for the next 8 years, and anti-Trump conservatives out voted younger left wing voters in the primary. Even if Warren did endorse Bernie, Biden still would have won with the other candidates’ endorsements. Without the pandemic, Biden might have lost, while Bernie could have pulled enough support from the base to stand a similar chance as Biden. Trump’s response to the pandemic pissed off enough conservatives to give Biden the win, but it also could have given every other Democratic candidate, including Bernie, the win.
However, this doesn’t mean Bernie wouldn’t have drawbacks as president. The mainstream media would certainly pull a Jeremy Corbyn on Bernie. The base and everyone on Lemmy would stand by him, but he would get torn apart by MMM for doing the progressive things Biden has done, and compared to Trump for even politely disagreeing with mainstream Democrats. If was principled and did everything right, he might pull a good amount of MMM watchers to his side, but many would lap up the propaganda.
Every mistake made by Bernie would cost him dearly, while Biden has the luxury of making way more errors because he was the most conservative candidate in the primaries. Left wing Democrats aren’t surprised by Biden’s lameness, while conservative Democrats put up with every progressive thing Biden does because every other Democrat would have done the same or worse. Most of the MMM doesn’t call Biden radical for doing progressive things, and left wing Biden voters are generally pleased that he has been more left wing than expected.
Biden’s biggest failures have been where he sucks in ways you didn’t expect he would. Fucking around with Manchin for months and doing nothing on immigration are huge failures. He claimed to be a deal maker, yet he tried to negotiate with someone who never intended to budge. Obama’s immigration strategy only lost him support, but Biden seems to think that he could avoid motivating the anti immigration crowd. It didn’t work for Obama and Hillary against Trump, and it definitely won’t work for him against Trump. The most conservative Democrats would still vote for him if he tried his hardest on immigration, as neoliberals actually like immigration for its economic benefits.
In short, Bernie would have an uphill battle against the media, while Biden’s mediocrity shouldn’t surprise anyone on the left. 2020 was where Democrats could have gotten someone better, and now we unfortunately have to live with it.
Don’t forget rapist who fucked over unions and owes me 600 dollars and finished the wall
And don’t forget about how they used covid as nothing but a football and followed Trump’s exact plan for it as soon as they were in charge of telling businesses they had to let sick people stay home. Democrats have more covid deaths on their hands than republicans now.
Why are things Hilly say relevant?
She is (or at least one of) the head of a massive informal organization that bridges massive formal organizations like Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, the DNC itself, and so on.
When a president wins an election for example, they have to get their staff from somewhere right? There has to be large numbers of people who can just drop what they’re doing based on the outcome of an election and spend the next several years doing that instead. These people staff NGOs in the orbit of the political ruling classes of these parties. Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the country because she can decide who gets the best jobs in these organizations. She can get journalists fired, she can get ambassadors hired. That’s her power.
Obama beat her and still had to deal with her to the point of setting her up to run in 2016. She didn’t join his organization he became a ‘board member’ of hers with a small cadre of his own people.
She is a former First Lady. Americans tend to listen to their first ladies when they choose to speak out, at least as much as any other celebrity. I remembering hearing plenty over the years from Lady Bird Johnson or Barbara Bush after they time in the White House was over. Hillary was also directly involved in politics after her time as First Lady, so i would think we would pay more attention to her when she speaks in that arena.
She was also Secretary of State under Obama.
With due respect, it is time for Hillary Clinton to be taken less seriously. Look at who she let win the presidency? A dynamic candidate that could connect with more voters could have flattened Trump. She came across as arrogant and entitled. She is a shrewd and intelligent person, but clearly disconnected from most normal concerns.
Look at who she let win the presidency?
She got more votes - the American voters literally preferred her but the electoral college does mean some votes are effectively worth more than others.
All these people thinking that she was too dumb to beat Trump also must assume that she created the electoral college. I’m at a total loss on a lot of comments in this thread.
The electoral college is not the only reason she lost, though?
She could have gotten more votes had she not been a crappy candidate, evidence of her being so is in other comment on this thread
Yup. Complaining about the electoral college is like bitching about losing a game because of a bad call by the referee. That’s just part of the game and you have to outplay it if you want to win.
All these people thinking that she was too dumb to beat Trump also must assume that she created the electoral college.
Or that she was too steeped in hubris to take it into account and campaign accordingly.
