Current Events > Hillary Clinton says young people support Palestine because we haven't educated

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

sometimes i forget that reading comprehension is a big issue here and obvious sarcasm isn't obvious...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yep, I was pulling for Ben Carson

Actually watching the clip rather than the topic title headline and I kinda agree with her point in the clip.

Not on Israel, she cowardly dodged that. But her point that most young people get their news from social media, especially Tik-Tok and it is full of misinformation/we are not educating people . Is completely true

I'm astounded that anyone here would disagree with that assessment. It's one of the big things that led to Trump winning the popular vote. You wouldn't know about Trump's crimes and the shitty economy and the horrors of ICE and growing fascism if for the past 10 years you've only got your news from your circle of Tiktok, Instagram, Twitter etc.

I think people are getting clickbaited by TC's topic title and that tweets "Shes not even TRYING to understand us" when the actual clip is pointing out that Tiktok is not a good source of information.

If TC made a topic saying "Is news on popular political Tiktok videos reliable" you'd all vote no.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

maybe, but i'd argue he'd have still won the primary come 2020. his base wouldn't have dropped him and he'd have had 4 years to keep up his grifting.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Aside from enriching and empowering the rich, Republicans don't have beliefs.

Democrats like us to think they aren't a conservative party. We NEED a leftist party bad.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Not on Israel, she cowardly dodged that. But her point that most young people get their news from social media, especially Tik-Tok and it is full of misinformation/we are not educating people . Is completely true

People getting their news from TikTok are misinformed. People getting their news from legacy media, talk radio, and other social media platforms are...?

monkmith posted...

sometimes i forget that reading comprehension is a big issue here and obvious sarcasm isn't obvious...

Yes, but you didn't write something obviously sarcastic. Just because you thought of it with a sarcastic tone doesn't mean that others will automatically see it that way. With written sarcasm you need to make it go "that one step further" when talking about the nature of the thing with works like "obviously" and "clearly", or the usage of italics.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

why do you quote 3 words from my original sarcastic post just to try to make it look like i was seriously agreeing with her? did you think the rest of the post pointing out the bullshit israel has been pushing for decades to build their own enemy was just not important.

The establishment Democrats have really been showing their true colors lately. It's hard not to believe that they purposely made Republican victory easier.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

The establishment Democrats have really been showing their true colors lately. It's hard not to believe that they purposely made Republican victory easier.

They're more like Republican-lite. I wasn't crying at her loss, I was crying at Trump's win. I feel like Bernie had a better chance at winning.

ellis123 posted...

Yes, but you didn't write something obviously sarcastic. Just because you thought of it with a sarcastic tone doesn't mean that others will automatically see it that way. With written sarcasm you need to make it go "that one step further" when talking about the nature of the thing with works like "obviously" and "clearly", or the usage of italics.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

so sarcastically agreeing that history isn't taught right in school, and then following it up with a point about how nobody brings up the shady shit israel have been doing for decades to destabilize the people they're currently genociding is somehow not obvious? i have a chip on my shoulder for being intentionally misquoted twice in a row and getting a little annoyed by it?

monkmith posted...

sometimes i forget that reading comprehension is a big issue here and obvious sarcasm isn't obvious...

If you can't pull off satire or sarcasm, don't post satire or sarcasm.

Solar_Crimson posted...

Nope, because we would have still gotten 3 leftward SCOTUS picks

No, you wouldn't have got any SCOTUS picks at all because the GOP Senate would have blocked them all. But that would still have been better than what you actually got.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yep, that man. His ability as a leader would not hinge on pyramid theory.

monkmith posted...

so sarcastically agreeing that history isn't taught right in school, and then following it up with a point about how nobody brings up the shady shit israel have been doing for decades to destabilize the people they're currently genociding is somehow not obvious? i have a chip on my shoulder for being intentionally misquoted twice in a row and getting a little annoyed by it?

Mate, I got that you were being sarcastic from the beginning. Hence why I made no comment earlier. I just completely get that others might not because you didn't write it in a way that comes across as particularly obvious and it's pretty fair for someone else to get tripped up on it.

She is such an unfortunate human

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

nah you guys are needless too hostile to him. i got his sarcasm but i know why you and other are taking that post at face value since we did have a coward with an alt just try to do that but not sarcastically and hasn't shown up after that drive by
but his full post was tongue in cheek about how people don't know the Israel propaganda of bibi having a hand in hamas's raise to power and even funded them. hell even during the current massacre it cameout bibi was again funding rival gangs in gaza who has links to ISIS and even some of Israel's MP were like ''dude wtf'' at that

IceCreamOnStero posted...

If she won, Trump 2024 would've just happened in 2020.

Trump 2016 > Biden 2020 is a much better scenario than Clinton 2016 > Trump 2020

There's no way to predict this would happen. If anything, her having 4 years as president (in 2016), would increase the odds of her being elected again in 2020, and beat hypothetically Trump by an even wider margin than if she won in 2016.

2024 would be interesting. But there would be no insurrection from Trump and all this other b.s. retaliation..If Trump managed to somehow win in 2024 as his first term, he wouldn't be as crazy as he is now in 2nd term, and maga wouldn't be nearly as big.

Arcanine2009 posted...

There's no way to predict this would happen. If anything, her having 4 years as president (in 2016), would increase the odds of her being elected again in 2020, and beat hypothetically Trump by an even wider margin than if she won in 2016.

i doubt this cuz had she won it would've been four years of later obama years where GOP stall everything and grind it to a halt while blasting attack ads at her for years. and the thing is the media would be helping fuel it and she would've lost in 2020 cuz people are easily duped into buying the BS that things aren't being fixed cuz the dems are lazy or are the reason their life sucks
tho at least the world would've handled covid alot better with her in charge and the courts might've been balanced enough not to fuck over people for generations
''edit''
Arcanine2009 posted...

2024 would be interesting. But there would be no insurrection from Trump and all this other b.s. retaliation..If Trump managed to somehow win in 2024 as his first term, he wouldn't be as crazy as he is now in 2nd term, and maga wouldn't be nearly as big.

i remember he was fanning insurrections during 2016 and would've pushed it had he lost so i think we would've seen it that year

AceMos posted...

no no we did not

but then again your a asmongold fan

Worse, they are full Trumpet

Hillary Clinton is a fucking loser and should be reminded of that fact every second of her miserable life

Stupid shit like this is why Democrats don't get more young people voting for them.

According to AIPAC Tracker she has received over $4 million from that particular Israeli lobby.
No need to say more.

Arcanine2009 posted...

2024 would be interesting. But there would be no insurrection from Trump and all this other b.s. retaliation..If Trump managed to somehow win in 2024 as his first term, he wouldn't be as crazy as he is now in 2nd term, and maga wouldn't be nearly as big.

The fact that Trump only lost 2020 because of COVID kind of goes against the idea that he would have lost both 2016 and 2020. If Hilary had won, she'd likely have had a lot of the same problems Trump did in 2020. You can argue about whether Trump 2016 > Biden 2020 or Hilary 2016 > Trump 2020 is worse but there's no way Trump loses both elections.

Vyrulisse posted...

According to AIPAC Tracker she has received over $4 million from that particular Israeli lobby.
No need to say more.

One of the people behind AIPAC tracker is quite literally a Holocaust "skeptic" and they lump any Jewish advocacy group as "AIPAC," including J-street which was founded to be a liberal counterweight to AIPAC.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/67a14921.png

Like this information is public. They also just straight lie at times and make numbers up

I honestly don't believe Trump would have run again if he lost in 2016. I feel like he would just move on to another grift after that, the Republican party wasn't supporting him the strong until after the election so he wouldn't have gained such a massive coalition had he lost.

LightSnake posted...

One of the people behind AIPAC tracker is quite literally a Holocaust "skeptic" and they lump any Jewish advocacy group as "AIPAC," including J-street which was founded to be a liberal counterweight to AIPAC.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/67a14921.png

Like this information is public. They also just straight lie at times and make numbers up

That's a shame to learn. Guess that source is bunk.

El_Dustino posted...

I honestly don't believe Trump would have run again if he lost in 2016. I feel like he would just move on to another grift after that, the Republican party wasn't supporting him the strong until after the election so he wouldn't have gained such a massive coalition had he lost.

Support for Trump at that time was utterly tepid and reluctant. Republicans were panicking about him heading the ticket and believed he'd be their ruin. The base wanted him bad and party elites jumped in. One of the first guys to sign on to Trumpmania was Jeff Sessions, which is probably why he got AG

If he lost....the party elites probably discard him and come out strong against him while blaming him for losses. I don't think support would've been there for 2020

Vyrulisse posted...

That's a shame to learn. Guess that source is bunk.

I'm all for calling out AIPAC, but AIPAC tracker basically counts any Jewish money at all as "AIPAC". There's plenty of posts where they put an asterisk and say "this isn't actually from AIPAC, BUT..."

AIPAC's just mostly like any other special interest group: they support candidates who agree with them. Clinton is just really, REALLY pro-Israel, which is an issue on her end and something she would've doubtlessly been poor on had she won. Especially given Bill's decades long tour of blaming the Palestinians for the failure of the two-state negotiations in the 90s

LightSnake posted...

If he lost....the party elites probably discard him and come out strong against him while blaming him for losses. I don't think support would've been there for 2020

Yeah, I think if Hillary had won in 2016, the Republican party would have lost a lot of momentum since Trump is basically the only unifying force they have at the moment. Only potential downside was Hillary seemed to be more conservative than Obama so there is a chance her term would have been further stagnation which might lead to a Republican victory in 2020, but it would most likely be a neocon who would be far less destructive than Trump and lead to a dem victory in 2024.

2016 is when the bad timeline started.

El_Dustino posted...

Yeah, I think if Hillary had won in 2016, the Republican party would have lost a lot of momentum since Trump is basically the only unifying force they have at the moment. Only potential downside was Hillary seemed to be more conservative than Obama so there is a chance her term would have been further stagnation which might lead to a Republican victory in 2020, but it would most likely be a neocon who would be far less destructive than Trump and lead to a dem victory in 2024.

2016 is when the bad timeline started.

I don't harbor many illusions that Hillary would've had a tougher Presidency since it's likely she spends the time dealing with a GOP House and investigated over everything. She'd probably have governed to Obama's less on several issues, though by sheer virtue of shifting attitudes. I expect she'd have made gains, but just not as many a she would've wanted. Like Hillary had some great policy on things like universal childcare.

But she would've held the line, filled Scalia's seat, RBG and probably Kennedy's too.

El_Dustino posted...

2016 is when the bad timeline started.

Ofc, that's when tragedy struck the Cincinnati Zoo

Supreme Court woulda been huge, even if Trump won 2020 in the Hilary 2016 timeline, a non Trumpian SC would have limited a lot of the BS he would try to pull.

El_Dustino posted...

Supreme Court woulda been huge, even if Trump won 2020 in the Hilary 2016 timeline, a non Trumpian SC would have limited a lot of the BS he would try to pull.

There's a number of truly, truly horrible cases that would've gone so much differently even with a 5-4 court....

ZMythos posted...

Stupid shit like this is why Democrats don't get more young people voting for them.

I think young people with leftist tendencies are smart enough to know Dems are a problem, just not as much as a problem as the right. I mean, up until this last election Dems were the establishment party-- even during Trump's first term. They're the party of shitty gov't subsidied health care-- I mean, it's better than nothing but if you want to know what people are dealing with go to reddit and read about Accredo. The party of two generations of people who won't ever own homes-- sure, Dems are pushing for higher pay (well... not pushing, mostly just occasionally mentioning it) but the number they push or was maybe a living wage 15 years ago. It's clown shoes behavior.

I believe she made this comment years ago. Not recently. And she's not wrong to an extent on how educated young kids or adults are to the Middle East in general. The conflict stems back decades and getting their info from social media isn't the best way to be informed of the entire situation.

With that said, she's also being condescending to them. Instead of saying what she said, she can also be the one to educate them too on this matter. I'm sure she knows what the Israeli government is doing is fucked up and the young ones are in the right side of history empathizing with the Palestinians. But like most politicians, she's a Israel shill so it tracks.

El_Dustino posted...

Supreme Court woulda been huge, even if Trump won 2020 in the Hilary 2016 timeline, a non Trumpian SC would have limited a lot of the BS he would try to pull.

Except in that scenario there'd still have been a Trumpian SC, just slightly later, because the Republican Senate would have blocked all Clinton's nominees and left vacancies for years until they took back the White House.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Disagree. If we assume the scenario is a narrow win for Clinton, why would they immediately drop Trump? Neocon politics got blown out in 2008 and 2012, and MAGA's a cult of personality, it would've kept on going through what would've been a very lukewarm Clinton term. I don't see a scenario where Trump wouldn't run and win the nomination again.

Wtf, no younger people aren't buying zionist propaganda anymore. And we're sick of them being the villains.

Arcanine2009 posted...

There's no way to predict this would happen. If anything, her having 4 years as president (in 2016), would increase the odds of her being elected again in 2020, and beat hypothetically Trump by an even wider margin than if she won in 2016.

2024 would be interesting. But there would be no insurrection from Trump and all this other b.s. retaliation..If Trump managed to somehow win in 2024 as his first term, he wouldn't be as crazy as he is now in 2nd term, and maga wouldn't be nearly as big.

Imo 2020 would've been very set in stone based directly on the 2016 winner, but I think 2024 is a toss-up in any timeline.

Clinton > Trump > 2024 Dem
Clinton > Trump > 2024 Rep
Trump > Biden > Better 2024 Dem
Trump > Biden > Trump

Are all realistic timelines in my eyes.

rideshort posted...

I believe she made this comment years ago. Not recently. And she's not wrong to an extent on how educated young kids or adults are to the Middle East in general. The conflict stems back decades and getting their info from social media isn't the best way to be informed of the entire situation.

With that said, she's also being condescending to them. Instead of saying what she said, she can also be the one to educate them too on this matter. I'm sure she knows what the Israeli government is doing is fucked up and the young ones are in the right side of history empathizing with the Palestinians. But like most politicians, she's a Israel shill so it tracks.

She has made this comment more than once, as has Bill Clinton. But this particular one is from last week at an event at Columbia University. The question he asks her starts around 23:20 if you want to see the unedited version.

https://youtu.be/PdPskPBd_78?si=JMxw5LLIFlVi_ZnZ&t=1400

But essentially what I think she's doing, is the same thing Bill Clinton has been doing. He blamed the former Palestine President for not agreeing to the peace talks back in 2000. And he basically doesn't thinkg Palestine deserves sympathy because they "had their chance."

All [young people in America] know that a lot more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. And I tell them what Arafat walked away from, and they, like, cant believe it,

I go through all the stuff that was in the deal, and they, like its not on their radar screen, they cant even imagine that happened, Clinton went on, describing his conversations with young Americans upset over the death toll in Gaza in the latest war.

You walk away from these once in a lifetime peace opportunities, and you cant complain twenty-five years later when the doors werent all still open, and all the possibilities werent still there. You cant do it, Clinton said.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-young-americans-shocked-to-learn-arafat-turned-down-palestinian-state/

So when Hillary talks about young people not knowing about history, I think she's talking about the same thing as him, which is really shitty.

NoxObscuras posted...

He blamed the former Palestine President for not agreeing to the peace talks back in 2000. And he basically doesn't thinkg Palestine deserves sympathy because they "had their chance."

Which of course is bullshit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/10/comment