Media/General Treatment of Hillary Clinton

[Jarhyn]

This thread is such a fucking joke.

Seriously, the media mistreated Hillary?

The GOO were a bunch of assholes to her.

And she was, herself, a raging ballsack.

As others have pointed out, everything about her campaign and messaging was focused on her own ego, on her. "I'm with her" rather than "she's with us". Her blatant corporatism, Her artificially constructed policy positions, pretty much the only times she is ever herself, her policy seems to be like looking into a window to 1996.

I couldn't care less about the shit torrent of buttery males that's been raining down on her since the 90's. I care about the shit torrent of outdated policy and artificiality spewing out of her since the 90's.

I have the same issues with Biden.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

She failed to become President, Koy.

And we know the reasons why Peng.

She still failed

And there it is again. A binary approach to mischaracterization. It doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet, Peng, there is no way to call what she surmounted--and won--a failure other than in the most childish of ways; to demonize.

and lost.... To your President Donald Trump.

See? You keep presenting Donald Trump as something so obviously bad that the fact she didn't "win" makes her out to be worse than him, except for the objective fact that she actually beat him by millions of votes.

See? Well done. She categorically did NOT do that, yet you keep repeating the same deliberate mischaracterization. Here, once again is what she actually said:

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

She DID classify half is his voters as deplorable bigots.

Again, no, she did not.

It cost her dearly

How? Among deplorables that weren't going to vote for her no matter what?

Is 11 million half of all Trump supporters?

Congratulations. You've pointed out she can't do math.

Just as you have reading comprehension problems and conceded she did not in fact classify half of his voters as deplorable bigots, but why let the facts get in your way now?

Let's recap one more time for the slow of reading:

Just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable

And then she goes on to point to the OTHER ones. Here, I'll make it idiot proof just for you:

To be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into a den of vipers. SOME of those folks are irredeemable; SOME are vipers themselves--about 11 million of them--but then there are the other Trump supporters who don't belong in that pit of vipers and are good people who we need to understand and NOT demonize along with those other vipers they're mixed in with. But we need to have empathy for them ALL regardless.

And what you and your ilk did was say, "Hillary Clinton called all Trump supporters bigoted vipers."

And then she further qualified with "some of those folks" are irredeemable before going on to her ACTUAL MESSAGE, which was that there is another basket of genuine, caring good people desperate for change--not racist, sexist, homophobic--not irredeemable and we need to understand that and reach out to them and empathize with them as well as the irredeemable ones.

An "actual message" that anybody could predict would be burried under her basket if deplorables line.

Damned if she does; damned if she doesn't.

This is the mark of a failed politician.

This is a mark of failed media and disingenuous people like you.

And she was absolutely correct on all counts. But, of course, all the Trumpeters did was focus exclusively on the "deplorable" part and did the exact same thing they did with "super predators." The exact same thing YOU are doing still.

I don't recall myself having ever mentioned her "super predators".

Oh, joy. Feigned obtuseness as well.

This is a new one you've been using of late (the "comrades" idiocy, attempting, I guess to imply a Russian connection or something)? Who gave you those marching orders? Just for my notes.

Hillary did. Or maybe it was you. We recently had a thread about Hillary calling Tulsi Gabbard a "Russian asset" and it was declared that anything that helps the Russians makes you one (I don't recall if it was you who said that).

It was not, but never let the facts stop you from attempting character assassination. It's your prime go to.

By that same logic, Hillary is a Russian asset because she landed Trump in the whitehouse with her failed attempt to take it herself.

Perfect! I knew I could count on you. No, that is not the same logic in the slightest, but that never stops you from mischaracterizing for the sake of demonization.

Textbook.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Seriously, the media mistreated Hillary?

Yes. Demonstrably so in fact.

The GOO were a bunch of assholes to her.

And she was, herself, a raging ballsack.

It's strange how you can understand she was mistreated and then at the same time paint her with that mistreatment.

As others have pointed out,

Falsely

everything about her campaign and messaging was focused on her own ego, on her. "I'm with her" rather than "she's with us".

Wrong, as I corrected "others."

Her blatant corporatism

Never evidenced, always implied.

Her artificially constructed policy positions

Such as? And how exactly do you know they were "artifiially constructed"? Would it have anything to do with a carefully crafted and relentlessly mischaracterized prejudice against her like as evidenced by literally everything Jolly Penguin has posted thus abundantly, ironically proving my point?

pretty much the only times she is ever herself, her policy seems to be like looking into a window to 1996.

In what way? ANY substantive argument is welcome. You might want to start with her position on Dodd-Frank as most do, but I'd take ANY substantive argument you want to lay down.

I couldn't care less about the shit torrent of buttery males that's been raining down on her since the 90's. I care about the shit torrent of outdated policy and artificiality spewing out of her since the 90's.

I have the same issues with Biden.

Well, this is a thread about Hillary, so please, by all means, what, exactly are you referring to in regard to her? You can start a Biden thread for that (or post in my thread arguing the case for him).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which of the usual canards is this one?

Hillary Goes Full FAR RIGHT, Calls Trans Issues "Legitimate Concern" For Women

It looks to be the exact same mischaracterization issue Peng has so eloquently and consistently demonstrated. Here's what she is quoted as saying in that piece:

“I do think there is a legitimate concern about women’s lived experience and the importance of recognizing that, and also the importance of recognizing the self-identification [of people who identify as transgender],” said the elder Clinton woman. “This is all relatively new. People are still trying to find the language for it, trying to sort it out. I think in the right mindset this can be understood, but it’s going to take some time.”

I don't even see a need to dig any deeper as what she said is non-controversial, but the whole point of this thread is to dig beneath the surface, so...

It starts at the 16:05 mark. Chelsea is the first one asked and she relates the fact that they (her and her mother) profiled Danica William in their book. Here is my translation of the sequence, truncated for relevancy:

Interviewer: Chelsea one of the most current and active debates is around transgender issues. And there are a lot of women, perhaps it's a generational difference, perhaps you and your mother experience it yourselves, and those who've been a long standing part of the women's movement sometimes are not quite sure where they stand on transgender issues. Is that something you feel?
Chelsea: Well we write about Danica William in the book..[snip her glowing description of William's struggle and she concludes with]....and I fully see her as a woman.
Interviewer: I guess it's the "self-defining," the self-defining that some people would find difficult. (to Hillary) Do you find it difficult?
Hillary: Well, I do think there is a legitimate concern about women’s "lived experience" and the importance of recognizing that, and also the importance of recognizing the self-identification. Look, this is all relatively new. People are still trying to find the language for it, trying to sort it out. I think in the right mindset this can be understood, but it’s going to take some time.

Perfectly straightforward. What issue do you see?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And the ultimate irony, of course, is that, very few politicians prepare their own speeches regardless. All that meant was she didn't instruct her speech writer(s) to bother with a concession speech on the night of the election, because literally everyone in the world thought she would be POTUS.

So you at least admit she was ill prepared.

And the fact that she wasn't came down to the tiniest of the tiny vote differentials in just three key states; less than 44,000 vote differential out of a record breaking turnout that saw her win the popular vote by millions of votes. Not a few hundred, like in 2000, but almost three million votes.

Should I play a violin for you? She failed to take the presidency. She gave us Donald Trump. Be proud of her and of your country.

It's telling how, out of one side of your mouth you demonize her by pointing out what a terrible candidate Trump was and how could she possibly have "failed" to beat him accordingly, and yet out of the other side you demonize her for being so "entitled" as the reason why she didn't write a concession speech.

These are not mutually exclusive. She was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign, and part of that was he sense of self entitlement.

Of course not, but, regardless, here you are trying to shift the focus off of a perfectly reasonable course of events into an opportunity for unjustifiable character assassination.

Having a concession speech in case you lose is politician 101.

This is exactly the case study this thread was all about, so keep it coming. I know you will.

Sure. It's fun to watch you squirm to defend your failure of an idol.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here, once again is what she actually said:

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.

That's all she had to say to kill any cross party support she may have otherwise had, and to put off quite a number of independents as well, and maybe even some Democrats. The rest is irrelevant backpedling. It was a form of political suicide and most of us realized it when we saw it, but as you said, she still managed to poll higher than Trump... and then proceeded to lose the presidency to him.... and then had no concession speech... and then wrote a finger pointing book to try to get away from the blame she deserves for losing... and now still can't get over it and remains sore at people like Tulsi Gabbard for having quit the DNC and supporting Bernie over her.

Peng, there is no way to call what she surmounted--and won--a failure other than in the most childish of ways; to demonize.

Donald Trump is your president. She failed to become president. How is that NOT a failure? Only in the most childish of face saving ways can that be called anything but a failure.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So you at least admit she was ill prepared.

There it is again. You state nothing substantive; all mischaracterization in order to personally attack her. She thought--as the whole world thought, including the Trump camp--that she was going to win. And she did. What she lost was an anomaly that no one--literally no one--foresaw, other than as a general "yeah, anything can happen in politics" outlyer.

Again, one of the most accurate analysts in the biz only gave the chances of what ended up happening 10% and by his metrics, that's the equivalent of any body else's "not going to happen."

She failed to take the presidency.

False. She won the only vote that exists, the popular vote. There is, ironically, no vote that takes place in the electoral college for all but two states. It is nothing more than a rubber stamp formality.

She gave us Donald Trump.

Again, false. Keep going because as I said, this is all perfectly illustrating my point.

Be proud of her and of your country.

It's telling how, out of one side of your mouth you demonize her by pointing out what a terrible candidate Trump was and how could she possibly have "failed" to beat him accordingly, and yet out of the other side you demonize her for being so "entitled" as the reason why she didn't write a concession speech.

These are not mutually exclusive.

They most certainly are. I'll use your own words to demonstrate that fact once again:

She was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign

Then how did she win the vote?

Of course not, but, regardless, here you are trying to shift the focus off of a perfectly reasonable course of events into an opportunity for unjustifiable character assassination.

Having a concession speech in case you lose is politician 101.

And not having prepared one due to literally every metric that existed right up until the revelation of the anomalous upset that confounded every pundit but Michael Moore is an utter irrelevancy. She--and the entire world, including the Trump camp--were confident she would win. And she did. Her confidence was not misplaced. She won by millions of votes. She lost the Presidency by 44,000, which no one predicted had any real chance of ever happening.

Regardless, who gives a fuck? You're trying to falsely conflate confidence in a campaign that every metric says was hers--and it was--with some kind of, what, arrogance? Elitism? Entitlement? All things that are yours alone being applied to how you misperceive her actions. Pointing out that others made the same misperception only gets us right back to the decades of those perceptions being shaped in a myriad of different ways.

Such as the "super predators" mischaracterization; the constant "corporate whore" lies; the endless parade of demonization tactics that you are perfectly illustrating with every post.

This is exactly the case study this thread was all about, so keep it coming. I know you will.

Sure. It's fun to watch you squirm to defend your failure of an idol.

Fascinating. A worm caught in a petri dish thinking its the one examining the scientists.

Thank you again. This is just perfect.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's all she had to say to kill any cross party support she may have otherwise had

You mean, like:

But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Something like that? Reaching out to her own fanatical devotees at that speech to admonish them to see beyond the vipers among the Trump supporters and instead see the honest, hard working genuine Americans looking for answers like everyone else? To empathize with them and understand them and include them?

No? So it's just in how you cherry-pick it.

and to put off quite a number of independents as well

Her full comments or just the cherry picking that you are doing as a perfect example of exactly what this thread is about?

Donald Trump is your president. She failed to become president. How is that NOT a failure?

Wow. Just brilliant.

 

[RVonse]

I can make this simple for you Koy.

Trump was indeed a highly flawed and the imperfect candidate on the personal level. But even so in the end, it was policy and policy alone that defeated Hillary. Democracy succeeds because in the aggregate, voters do actually get it right. And they did get it right.

The people were fed up with the military complex, corporate globalism, and the central bankers.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She thought--as the whole world thought, including the Trump camp--that she was going to win. And she did. What she lost was an anomaly that no one--literally no one--foresaw, other than as a general "yeah, anything can happen in politics" outlyer.

An outlier that should have been more than enough. She was running for the President of the United States. She should have been prepared. When's the last time somebody lost an election for that office and didn't have something ready to say upon losing? As I wrote above. Its politics 101. She's been in politics more than long enough to make this mistake.

She was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign

Then how did she win the vote?

She LOST the presidency. You can point at the electoral college all you want (yet oddly I see no initiative from you to change it; weird that), and she still lost, in an election system she knew very well how it works. Your constant insisting that she "won" while she failed to take the whitehouse is bordering on delusion.

And you even insisted on bringing this out of the Presidential Politics subsection for some reason. Dude, really, why the obsession with Hillary? Let the politically dead rest in peace.

 

[ZiprHead]

I can make this simple for you Koy.

Trump was indeed a highly flawed and the imperfect candidate on the personal level. But even so in the end, it was policy and policy alone that defeated Hillary. Democracy succeeds because in the aggregate, voters do actually get it right. And they did get it right.

The people were fed up with the military complex, corporate globalism, and the central bankers.

Democracy? You've got to be fucking kidding me!

There was nothing democratic about the awarding of the presidency to Trump by the EC.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I can make this simple for you Koy.

Can you RV? Can you?

Trump was indeed a highly flawed and the imperfect candidate on the personal level. But even so in the end, it was policy and policy alone that defeated Hillary.

What “policy” would that be?

Democracy succeeds because in the aggregate, voters do actually get it right. And they did get it right.

I agree. Americans preferred Hillary by millions of votes in a record turnout in spite of the massive tonnage of bullshit that people like Peng have unjustifiably heaped on her shoulders for decades AND an unprecedented, massive clandestine cyber attack by the Russians no less AND an October surprise by the FBI AND the massive election tampering techniques of the GOP AND the racism/sexism AND the fact no one points to, which is the huge number of voters who didn’t bother because they all thought she was a lock and/or there would be no way for Trump to win. Buttery mails.

The people were fed up with the military complex, corporate globalism, and the central bankers.

Uh huh. And that’s why Hillary beat Trump by almost three million votes (ten if you add in the expressed preference of eligible voters that for various non-partisan reasons did not cast their ballot).

So, yeah, thanks, RV. You did make it simple!