Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 130: Playing the Victims

(+) Yeah! (+)

the #2 republican challenger was literally ted cruz

the just party doesn't care about decent candidates
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/905038986883850240

Trying to bully Congress again

Out of context it seems like he's actually approving DACA.
---

I agree that it sounds like Donald's playing both sides with that tweet -- he's ending it in six months unless Congress passes it, which he's hoping for. This is like when he said he loves the Dreamers before this announcement of his against DACA.
---

Yeah, exactly: even he somehow realizes that this decision is wrong (or at least that he'll (rightly) be judged as a monsters for it by a large segment of the population), but he doesn't want to piss off his anti-immigrant base either.
---

"There can be no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will."


Says the man who pardoned Arpaio
---

http://cnn.it/2vHZeAD

More quotes from Hillary's book.

Yikes, she doesn't give a shit if the Bernie Block ever comes back to the Democrats, huh?
---

To be fair, I doubt a lot of the "Bernie or bust" people were going to vote any further, anyway.
---

Also I don't remember who said she took responsibility for her loss, but there's a video clip on that player where she literally says

"I take responsibility for every action I took, but that's not why I lost."

lmao
---

Sanders’ effect on Clinton’s campaign would be interesting to talk about. He forced her to shift left in an attempt to unite everyone, but some of those people went “nope, not enough,” causing her to alienate independents that may have voted Democrats last election.

Would it have been a better idea for her to ignore the Bernie bros (especially since many of his supporters would have voted for her regardless) and continued to vie for independents votes?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

http://cnn.it/2vHZeAD

More quotes from Hillary's book.

Yikes, she doesn't give a shit if the Bernie Block ever comes back to the Democrats, huh?

I mean

Did she say anything not accurate there?
---

She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused "lasting damage" and paved the way for "(Donald) Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled "What Happened," said Sanders "had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character" because the two Democrats "agreed on so much."

I mean is that not word for word a thing trump said ad nauseum - using Bernie as support for his accusation
---

Yeah, that seems pretty dead on.
---

yeap that's a bunch of facts alright
---

That's such basic politics though. Barring context, I don't see the point of bringing it up.
---

Bernie is also to blame for "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco" btw


Give me a break, guys. Republicans have been calling Hillary crooked for a decade.

Blaming that on Bernie is disingenuous at best, and at worst, proving the exact point Bernie supporters have said from Day 1.
---

Also Hillary's entire general election campaign was about Trump's bad character

Which really SHOULD have been enough, but, well...
---

Jakyl25 posted...

That's such basic politics though. Barring context, I don't see the point of bringing it up.

Oh, I don't disagree there.

I merely agree that nothing she said isn't factual, regardless of why it was brought up.
---

How anyone can read the shit in that tantrum of a book and think anything but "please go away forever Hillary" is a mystery to me. People say Bernie people are why there's no unity in the party but Bernie endorsed her and campaigned for her and was far more mild in his criticism the entire time than the Clinton/Obama match up in 08, and he never wrote a fucking book whining about her. The centrist Democrats go on about unity but they only mean it one way - the left has to bow to their whims and never want anything for it. So ridiculously entitled to, but in no way wanting to earn people's support. Ralph Nader just had a great interview with the intercept spelling out a lot of the failings of the Democratic party in the last several decades that's worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.

If there's anything that the 2016 election proved, it's that hot air wins above all else. I'm pretty sure that's the main takeaway politicians got from it too so get ready for an even worse 2020
---

Except that hot air isn't real because climate change is false
---

that's some real hot air hot air
---

Bernie was like the only person in America who didn't care about her damn emails, and he led off in the first debate with that. Does she cover that in the book? Bernie supporters went to Hillary more than Hillary supporters went to Obama. Is that included?

Bernie exposed a pre-existing fracture in the Democratic party and I'm thankful he did -- we've needed this conversation within the party for awhile. Hillary can be mad at it and I don't blame her emotionally -- I get it. But, like, now she's associating the worst of Bernie fans with Donald to make it sound like everybody who Feels The Bern are the same and they're not. Bernie Bros have been called sexist a bunch by a candidate who was blatantly telling people to vote for her because she'd be the first woman to be President. Don't do that, come on.

Regardless, I'm interested in her take on this whole experience.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

How anyone can read the shit in that tantrum of a book and think anything but "please go away forever Hillary" is a mystery to me. People say Bernie people are why there's no unity in the party but Bernie endorsed her and campaigned for her and was far more mild in his criticism the entire time than the Clinton/Obama match up in 08, and he never wrote a fucking book whining about her. The centrist Democrats go on about unity but they only mean it one way - the left has to bow to their whims and never want anything for it. So ridiculously entitled to, but in no way wanting to earn people's support. Ralph Nader just had a great interview with the intercept spelling out a lot of the failings of the Democratic party in the last several decades that's worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.

It doesnt matter that Bernie endorsed her when his supporters refused to follow him down that path.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bernie is also to blame for "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco" btw


Give me a break, guys. Republicans have been calling Hillary crooked for a decade.

Blaming that on Bernie is disingenuous at best, and at worst, proving the exact point Bernie supporters have said from Day 1.

Its a matter of legitimizing the claim - Bernie has good trust numbers and ran a campaign that could have been titled "Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for".

Trump didn't win because he won all the Republicans - he won because he got people older working class people who sometimes vote democrat to vote Republican. That's the truth of the situation.
---

Eddv posted...

Its a matter of legitimizing the claim - Bernie has good trust numbers and ran a campaign that could have been titled "Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for".

I mean, she was.

But so was he.

And so is Trump

And literally everyone running
---

Right but who were the two people best able to claim they werent bought and paid for?

Trump (independently wealthy) and Sanders (The Myth of the Small Donor).

Just because they were both lying doesn't ACTUALLY matter - enough people bought the lies at the time for them to effectively be the truth.

I'm not willing to put Sanders into the top 5 of the reasons Hillary lost but his scorched earth longshot primary campaign helped no one and served as an albatross.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Sanders’ effect on Clinton’s campaign would be interesting to talk about. He forced her to shift left in an attempt to unite everyone, but some of those people went “nope, not enough,” causing her to alienate independents that may have voted Democrats last election.

Would it have been a better idea for her to ignore the Bernie bros (especially since many of his supporters would have voted for her regardless) and continued to vie for independents votes?

I always role my eyes at these claims since Bernie constantly outperformed Hillary with self proclaimed independents.
---

lordloki12 posted...

velocycloraptor posted...

How anyone can read the shit in that tantrum of a book and think anything but "please go away forever Hillary" is a mystery to me. People say Bernie people are why there's no unity in the party but Bernie endorsed her and campaigned for her and was far more mild in his criticism the entire time than the Clinton/Obama match up in 08, and he never wrote a fucking book whining about her. The centrist Democrats go on about unity but they only mean it one way - the left has to bow to their whims and never want anything for it. So ridiculously entitled to, but in no way wanting to earn people's support. Ralph Nader just had a great interview with the intercept spelling out a lot of the failings of the Democratic party in the last several decades that's worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.

It doesnt matter that Bernie endorsed her when his supporters refused to follow him down that path.

Obama managed to beat McCain despite more Hillary primary voters going for McCain than Sanders voters going for Trump. And regardless, she is blaming Bernie, not his supporters.

and lol@ the idea that bernies campaign "helped no one" his campaign got millions of people involved in politics that previously were dormant, and has vastly strengthened organizations dedicated to fighting for many of his campaign issues, or the DSA, etc. you would not believe the amount of people who credit him for finally getting involved, and blaming him for daring to win is the same incredible kind of shit I was talking about in re: left must unify toward center without expecting anything, never the other way around.

Eddv posted...

I'm not willing to put Sanders into the top 5 of the reasons Hillary lost but his scorched earth longshot primary campaign helped no one and served as an albatross

I get what you're saying, but that's literally how primaries work.

In 2008, Hillary literally brought up Louis Farrakhan and said Obama should have denounced him sooner, compared Obama to Dubya, and basically called him soft on terrorists...which for that last one in particular if you'll recall, was a common accusation from Republicans his entire presidency.
---

Eddv posted...

(The Myth of the Small Donor)

Could you elaborate or guide me to a good source you like on this?
---

Samurai7 posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Sanders’ effect on Clinton’s campaign would be interesting to talk about. He forced her to shift left in an attempt to unite everyone, but some of those people went “nope, not enough,” causing her to alienate independents that may have voted Democrats last election.

Would it have been a better idea for her to ignore the Bernie bros (especially since many of his supporters would have voted for her regardless) and continued to vie for independents votes?

I always role my eyes at these claims since Bernie constantly outperformed Hillary with self proclaimed independents.

It is almost like those folks are not registered D for a reason....if they loved the democrats biggest names like Clinton, they probably would be! And just look at how much better Bernie did in open states vs closed states...IND voters clearly liked him more. No idea why people think despite all the massive evidence we have toward him performing better with IND voters that some people think he somehow ends up doing worse with them.

And yeah, saying Bernie helped no one when he had literally record-breaking rallies and involvement is asanine.

The dude brought people to the table who Hillary would never have reached on her own, and then she proceeded to snub them, and this book is just doubling down on that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

In 2008, Hillary literally brought up Louis Farrakhan and said Obama should have denounced him sooner, compared Obama to Dubya, and basically called him soft on terrorists...which for that last one in particular if you'll recall, was a common accusation from Republicans his entire presidency.

Don't forget "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know" (paraphrased). It's not the worst dog-whistle ever (or hers really), but Donald completely ran with the birther campaign for five years before dumping its blame on her because she made this kind of comment.
---

god you guys are so fucked 2020
---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

remember this shit

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Eddv posted...

I'm not willing to put Sanders into the top 5 of the reasons Hillary lost but his scorched earth longshot primary campaign helped no one and served as an albatross

I get what you're saying, but that's literally how primaries work.

In 2008, Hillary literally brought up Louis Farrakhan and said Obama should have denounced him sooner, compared Obama to Dubya, and basically called him soft on terrorists...which for that last one in particular if you'll recall, was a common accusation from Republicans his entire presidency.

I get what you're saying but its one thing to do it when you can actually win, its justifiable to bring everything you have at someone under those circumstances if still gross.

To do it when you have literally no chance at winning, and Sanders from the beginning did not have ANY CHANCE at winning, is to damage your own cause for no reason.

Like if it's Biden going there, like fine but Sanders shouldn't have.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

god you guys are so fucked 2020

We knew this was the case once Bernie dropped out!
---

yes we remember hillary losing the 2008 primaries
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

yes we remember hillary losing the 2008 primaries

what I posted was literally part of the conversation that was happening, no need to be an asshole

these topics are insufferable, going back to not reading them

Obama's statement on DACA:

https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155227588436749

Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules.

But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license.

Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.

But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.

---

Continued:

It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.

---

velocycloraptor posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

remember this shit

Plouffe described circulation of the picture as part of "a disturbing pattern". "It's exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties," he said.

Hey 2008, 2016 called. It said "Says who?"
---

nobody liked hillary mudslinging obama, even here in canada it became part of the hillary clinton personality in comedy impersonations

"but hillary did it" isn't a defense, nobody here is claiming hillary to be some great person, she's never been the "personality" candidate
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

god you guys are so fucked 2020

yep

all hope is lost
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

nobody liked hillary mudslinging obama, even here in canada it became part of the hillary clinton personality in comedy impersonations

"but hillary did it" isn't a defense, nobody here is claiming hillary to be some great person, she's never been the "personality" candidate

It isn't a defense when Hillary is making the attacks?

I'm skeptical.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

nobody liked hillary mudslinging obama, even here in canada it became part of the hillary clinton personality in comedy impersonations

"but hillary did it" isn't a defense, nobody here is claiming hillary to be some great person, she's never been the "personality" candidate

It isn't a defense when Hillary is making the attacks?

I'm skeptical.

what
---

what
---

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.

Thank you, Mr. President.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

lordloki12 posted...

velocycloraptor posted...

How anyone can read the shit in that tantrum of a book and think anything but "please go away forever Hillary" is a mystery to me. People say Bernie people are why there's no unity in the party but Bernie endorsed her and campaigned for her and was far more mild in his criticism the entire time than the Clinton/Obama match up in 08, and he never wrote a fucking book whining about her. The centrist Democrats go on about unity but they only mean it one way - the left has to bow to their whims and never want anything for it. So ridiculously entitled to, but in no way wanting to earn people's support. Ralph Nader just had a great interview with the intercept spelling out a lot of the failings of the Democratic party in the last several decades that's worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.

It doesnt matter that Bernie endorsed her when his supporters refused to follow him down that path.

Obama managed to beat McCain despite more Hillary primary voters going for McCain than Sanders voters going for Trump. And regardless, she is blaming Bernie, not his supporters.

and lol@ the idea that bernies campaign "helped no one" his campaign got millions of people involved in politics that previously were dormant, and has vastly strengthened organizations dedicated to fighting for many of his campaign issues, or the DSA, etc. you would not believe the amount of people who credit him for finally getting involved, and blaming him for daring to win is the same incredible kind of shit I was talking about in re: left must unify toward center without expecting anything, never the other way around.

Yeah now imagine how much more could have been done for his causes if the Bernie or bust people had helped elect the democrat instead of protesting and walking out during the convention. Now it is all defense all the time for the foreseeable future on pretty much any cause his side would want.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

How anyone can read the shit in that tantrum of a book and think anything but "please go away forever Hillary" is a mystery to me. People say Bernie people are why there's no unity in the party but Bernie endorsed her and campaigned for her and was far more mild in his criticism the entire time than the Clinton/Obama match up in 08, and he never wrote a fucking book whining about her. The centrist Democrats go on about unity but they only mean it one way - the left has to bow to their whims and never want anything for it. So ridiculously entitled to, but in no way wanting to earn people's support. Ralph Nader just had a great interview with the intercept spelling out a lot of the failings of the Democratic party in the last several decades that's worth a read for anyone interested in the subject.

Honest to goodness, and you guys are free to screen this, but the country would be in a better social spot had Bernie won. Economically he would have sucked, but we have balances on a president making idiotic choices.