What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?

Except for the plans he laid out for financing them through specific taxation measures. Which made everyone go "$60b?! There is no magic money tree!!!!", until the GOP randomly decide to just piss $1.5 TRILLION up against the wall, and that's apparently fine.


Oh gosh really? Well that makes it completely reasonable to say it publicly then, and piss off every parent, family member and close friend of a Trump supporter. Do you realize how many people didn't vote for her because she'd just attacked their kids? It was the most stupid thing she did in a campaign full of stupid.


Her biggest mistake was being a godawful political campaigner, and thinking that you can GOTV in the same way you can excite policy experts at a conference. She's a policy wonk and had absolutely no business being nominated for a national campaign. Especially after fecking up the last one too.
I'm not aware anyone claiming that was fine. Most of us are against the Trump Tax Bill.

It was a stupid move, doesn't make it any less true.

The best campaigners don't make the best presidents, I happen to think she'd have done very well as president.
 
Calm down. You do realize that some people actually LIKE her position, we don't live in a "the further left the better" world.

She made some mistakes during the campaign, but it's inescapable that she'd most likely still have won without Comey.

Most of what she said during the campaign was very true, Sanders had a lot of good ideas, but no viable way of financing them, Trump supporters are mostly deplorables. Her biggest mistake was she was too honest and overestimated the collective rationality and intelligence of middle America.

Honest? She and her team were sanctimonious, arrogant and dismissive of folks who had valid criticisms. In her book she refers to Bernie's attraction to young voters like promising ponies to little children. How blinkered. President Jimmy Carter voted for Bernie over her. He knows a thing or two about these things.

She had the incumbent President and Vice President doing rallies using government planes and material which is usually taboo. Her husband voiced the same concerns about the lack of appeal to the working-class areas which propelled him to the White House in the 90s. She did not resonate with them and didn't seem to want to resonate with them.
 
How dare she crack a joke about how she lost to a rapist with a wet log for a brain. She lost because she was completely out of touch with most of the country, hired advisors who were completely out of touch with most of the country, picked the most forgettable VP nominee in decades, was incredibly unpopular and ran a horrible campaign centered around "get a load of this guy". Then after she blew it she had the nerve to criticize the participants in the women's March for not doing more for her. She should take her millions and do something productive like Jimmy Carter did. The least she could do is shut the feck up about politics. Her opinion is literally worthless. She lost to a junior senator with a name that sounded like an amalgamation of every boogeyman the country hated at the time, she ran a racist campaign against him and then a sizable chunk of her voters went over to mccain. She then had a few years as secretary of state where she helped turn Libya into an open air slave market. She used a private server for official government business, which is not a huge deal but absolutely an example of clintonian paranoia. And then she lost to a dementia addled game show host. She and her team legitimized trump and hoped to face him and then used the same strategy that didn't work for the Republicans. She said single payer would never ever happen. Her boy Schumer said their strategy of alienating working class voters would pay off when they got twice as many country club Republicans to cross over and vote for her. Well guess what, they fecking hate her and they hate Democrats and the fact that these absolute weapons thought it might just shows how out of touch they are with normal people in this country. Why do they think people are Republicans? Because they care about small government? No its because they hate Democrats, they hate effete snooty libs who spend thousands of dollars to see Hamilton. They hate poor people. They hate people who read the New Yorker. They hate gays. They hate blacks. They hate foreigners. The republican party is the party of resentment and trump is the personiication of that rage. They would never have gone to her and her team would have known that if they had even one person whose career path wasn't unpaid internship > think tank > congressional staffer > dnc leech. They would have known that if they bothered to think about and listen to people in this country who dont have trust funds or who didn't go to Wellesley or Cornell or Northwestern. The Clintons helped turn the supposed left wing party into a party that stands for wall street, imperialism and drone strikes but sometimes they wrap the drones in rainbow flags before they blow up wedding parties half way around the world. They would have known how much people hated them if they ever spent time outside of the acela corridor that wasnt a VIP trip to Lollapalooza.

What I dont get is how you people arent more mad at her than I am. I hate her and everything she stands for. I think she would have been a terrible president who directly caused a ton of human misery. You guys like her. You guys think she would have been a good president. How can you not be so angry at her for blowing the easiest election ever? How can you laugh when she posts glib remarks about how she lost the election to the hamburglar? If Bernie got the nomination and blew it by running a bad campaign with a discredited strategy I would never forgive him. But for you guys it's like there is no culpability on her or her team. She fecking blew it. She's a terrible politician and a terrible person and the least she could do is shut the feck up about it.
You could've just said this instead of the 800 anti Hillary posts when you deflect from trumps or republican shithousery. You should now do one on Obama.
 
I don’t live in America, I live in Asia (Hong Kong), I just think that Hillary being elected president in 2016 would have been the best thing for the world

From a foreign policy perspective I definitely agree. From a domestic view, it would've been intense gridlock minus the Trump executive orders, immigrant bashing, and random posturing on trade policy.
 
How dare she crack a joke about how she lost to a rapist with a wet log for a brain. She lost because she was completely out of touch with most of the country, hired advisors who were completely out of touch with most of the country, picked the most forgettable VP nominee in decades, was incredibly unpopular and ran a horrible campaign centered around "get a load of this guy". Then after she blew it she had the nerve to criticize the participants in the women's March for not doing more for her. She should take her millions and do something productive like Jimmy Carter did. The least she could do is shut the feck up about politics. Her opinion is literally worthless. She lost to a junior senator with a name that sounded like an amalgamation of every boogeyman the country hated at the time, she ran a racist campaign against him and then a sizable chunk of her voters went over to mccain. She then had a few years as secretary of state where she helped turn Libya into an open air slave market. She used a private server for official government business, which is not a huge deal but absolutely an example of clintonian paranoia. And then she lost to a dementia addled game show host. She and her team legitimized trump and hoped to face him and then used the same strategy that didn't work for the Republicans. She said single payer would never ever happen. Her boy Schumer said their strategy of alienating working class voters would pay off when they got twice as many country club Republicans to cross over and vote for her. Well guess what, they fecking hate her and they hate Democrats and the fact that these absolute weapons thought it might just shows how out of touch they are with normal people in this country. Why do they think people are Republicans? Because they care about small government? No its because they hate Democrats, they hate effete snooty libs who spend thousands of dollars to see Hamilton. They hate poor people. They hate people who read the New Yorker. They hate gays. They hate blacks. They hate foreigners. The republican party is the party of resentment and trump is the personiication of that rage. They would never have gone to her and her team would have known that if they had even one person whose career path wasn't unpaid internship > think tank > congressional staffer > dnc leech. They would have known that if they bothered to think about and listen to people in this country who dont have trust funds or who didn't go to Wellesley or Cornell or Northwestern. The Clintons helped turn the supposed left wing party into a party that stands for wall street, imperialism and drone strikes but sometimes they wrap the drones in rainbow flags before they blow up wedding parties half way around the world. They would have known how much people hated them if they ever spent time outside of the acela corridor that wasnt a VIP trip to Lollapalooza.

What I dont get is how you people arent more mad at her than I am. I hate her and everything she stands for. I think she would have been a terrible president who directly caused a ton of human misery. You guys like her. You guys think she would have been a good president. How can you not be so angry at her for blowing the easiest election ever? How can you laugh when she posts glib remarks about how she lost the election to the hamburglar? If Bernie got the nomination and blew it by running a bad campaign with a discredited strategy I would never forgive him. But for you guys it's like there is no culpability on her or her team. She fecking blew it. She's a terrible politician and a terrible person and the least she could do is shut the feck up about it.


Well said and absolutely spot on. Ridiculous entitlement and complete clueless from Hilary and her sycophants.
 
Well said and absolutely spot on. Ridiculous entitlement and complete clueless from Hilary and her sycophants.

The super delegate issue is often left out of the equation. She would've had difficulty getting the nomination if she wasn't gifted a 500 super delegate lead in the beginning. The DNC wanted to stack the odds in her favor to avoid another Obama like insurgency and in the end that prevented Sanders from winning since he only finished about 400 behind her (even with superdelegates counted).
 
There's also the Hillary v Messi thread.
 
From a foreign policy perspective I definitely agree. From a domestic view, it would've been intense gridlock minus the Trump executive orders, immigrant bashing, and random posturing on trade policy.

Actually I think Trump might even up better for foreign policy in the long term. North Korea might end up being an achievement Clinton likely could not have achieved. I can't see Clinton achieving anything on NK tbh. I also think careless drone strikes would have continued and nothing ultimately positive would have been achieved.

And also, this chain of events has led to a lot more exposure of foreign and domestic shadiness than I think would have happened had Clinton won. Had Clinton won, the influence of Russia would have been ignored. A lot of Trump's corruption would have gone unchallenged and we wouldn't see some of the worst of both parties exposed like we do now.
 
Actually I think Trump might even up better for foreign policy in the long term. North Korea might end up being an achievement Clinton likely could not have achieved. I can't see Clinton achieving anything on NK tbh. I also think careless drone strikes would have continued and nothing ultimately positive would have been achieved.

And also, this chain of events has led to a lot more exposure of foreign and domestic shadiness than I think would have happened had Clinton won. Had Clinton won, the influence of Russia would have been ignored. A lot of Trump's corruption would have gone unchallenged and we wouldn't see some of the worst of both parties exposed like we do now.

I don't think Trump has achieved anything beyond what Obama or those before him did on NK. Simply doing a grin and grip photo op with Kim and making unilateral concessions on South Korean exercises is one step forward and two steps back for US foreign policy. Obama was too soft and passive aggressive on foreign policy imo.
 
I don't think Trump has achieved anything beyond what Obama or those before him did on NK. Simply doing a grin and grip photo op with Kim and making unilateral concessions on South Korean exercises is one step forward and two steps back for US foreign policy. Obama was too soft and passive aggressive on foreign policy imo.

Well its an open equation. I think Clinton would have been even softer and more passive aggressive than Obama and basically accomplished nothing.

There is at least a window of opportunity here with NK and it should in everyone's interest (SK, Japan,) to make sure this goes somewhere meaningful. Of course it could all just be more hot air from NK but I think most moderates are at least hopefully something good comes out of it.
 
Well its an open equation. I think Clinton would have been even softer and more passive aggressive than Obama and basically accomplished nothing.

There is at least a window of opportunity here with NK and it should in everyone's interest (SK, Japan,) to make sure this goes somewhere meaningful. Of course it could all just be more hot air from NK but I think most moderates are at least hopefully something good comes out of it.
Clinton is far more hawkish than Obama though.
 
Well its an open equation. I think Clinton would have been even softer and more passive aggressive than Obama and basically accomplished nothing.

There is at least a window of opportunity here with NK and it should in everyone's interest (SK, Japan,) to make sure this goes somewhere meaningful. Of course it could all just be more hot air from NK but I think most moderates are at least hopefully something good comes out of it.

She's far more muscular and assertive than him on interventions and pushing human rights, women's rights, democracy, development etc. Obama suffered from a case of being a bit too limpwristed and passive aggressive on foreign policy, which he then attempted to make up for by covert actions such as drone strikes and special forces activities. Whenever someone campaigns on a "bring the troops home" platform, they handcuff themselves from being able to take decisive action for fear of looking like they are breaking a campaign pledge.
 
She's far more muscular and assertive than him on interventions and pushing human rights, women's rights, democracy, development etc. Obama suffered from a case of being a bit too limpwristed and passive aggressive on foreign policy, which he then attempted to make up for by covert actions such as drone strikes and special forces activities. Whenever someone campaigns on a "bring the troops home" platform, they handcuff themselves from being able to take decisive action for fear of looking like they are breaking a campaign pledge.

She was more hawkish as a Senator when the mood after 9/11 was very hawkish but I think she would just do what she always does: make her policy by her special interest donors and her campaigning by chasing polls. She just happened to be in a public position when that was the way the wind was blowing (Iraqi War) , so as per usual Clinton tried to rush to the front of the wind. Its possible she might have used some more hawkish language than Obama on NK but I am not sure it would have amounted to anything more than Obama. Among many independent voters, the perception was her foreign policy would be very weak and ineffective.

Looking back after 20 years, the first Clinton Admin does not hold up very well on foreign policy - failed to guide Soviet breakup in a positive way and was too neo-liberal ideology focus and not pragmatic enough, failed to achieve better Israel-Palestine situation by getting completely outflanked by the conservative Israelis who opposed the two state, failed to adequately recognize the threat that Islamic terrorism was becoming, failed to fix the Iraq situation by just lazily slapping sanctions on Iraq that hurt the civilians more than Saddam thus precipitating PNAC in later years and Clintons failed to act on the genocide in Rwanda. So while she might talk tough when it suits the polls, her record doesn't really give much confidence on consistent action.
 
Looking back after 20 years, the first Clinton Admin does not hold up very well on foreign policy - failed to guide Soviet breakup in a positive way and was too neo-liberal ideology focus and not pragmatic enough, failed to achieve better Israel-Palestine situation by getting completely outflanked by the conservative Israelis who opposed the two state, failed to adequately recognize the threat that Islamic terrorism was becoming, failed to fix the Iraq situation by just lazily slapping sanctions on Iraq that hurt the civilians more than Saddam thus precipitating PNAC in later years and Clintons failed to act on the genocide in Rwanda. So while she might talk tough when it suits the polls, her record doesn't really give much confidence on consistent action.

None of these items are failures on the part of any third party. The breakup of the Soviet Union was bound to result in an orgy of corruption resulting from the jostling among the ex-Soviet power structure. A totalitarian state isn't going to smoothly transition to an advanced Democracy in less than a generation and the transition has to be driven by domestic political will, not by prodding from the outside, otherwise it won't last. As for Israel-Palestine, Clinton did fairly well compared with his contemporaries and would've had more luck of Rabin didn't get killed. As for Islamic terrorism - Clinton actually took a shot at Bin Ladin in the late 90s well before 9/11 planning was underway.
 
None of these items are failures on the part of any third party. The breakup of the Soviet Union was bound to result in an orgy of corruption resulting from the jostling among the ex-Soviet power structure. A totalitarian state isn't going to smoothly transition to an advanced Democracy in less than a generation and the transition has to be driven by domestic political will, not by prodding from the outside, otherwise it won't last. As for Israel-Palestine, Clinton did fairly well compared with his contemporaries and would've had more luck of Rabin didn't get killed. As for Islamic terrorism - Clinton actually took a shot at Bin Ladin in the late 90s well before 9/11 planning was underway.

The US role in the settling after the breakup is almost universally considered a failure by economists. Even Milton Friedman had to admit how wrong they all were with their laissez-faire and neo-liberal suggestions. I personally think Ross Perot or HW Bush would have been better than Clinton on handling the post-Soviet breakup as ironically neither were as ideological as the neo-liberal Clinton. And for Israel-Palestine, Clinton was positioned at the most promising window of opportunity possibly ever to achieve something there and he still failed. Maybe it can be said that others might have failed that might be true as well, but it is true that Clinton failed.
Really Clinton's foreign policy is not faring much better historically than his domestic record, especially if we count his signing of the FSMA and CFMA as both foreign and domestic since it negatively affected economies around the world.
 
The US role in the settling after the breakup is almost universally considered a failure by economists. Even Milton Friedman had to admit how wrong they all were with their laissez-faire and neo-liberal suggestions. I personally think Ross Perot or HW Bush would have been better than Clinton on handling the post-Soviet breakup as ironically neither were as ideological as the neo-liberal Clinton. And for Israel-Palestine, Clinton was positioned at the most promising window of opportunity possibly ever to achieve something there and he still failed. Maybe it can be said that others might have failed that might be true as well, but it is true that Clinton failed.
Really Clinton's foreign policy is not faring much better historically than his domestic record, especially if we count his signing of the FSMA and CFMA as both foreign and domestic since it negatively affected economies around the world.

I don't think any US President would've been any different since there was nothing that could've been done form the outside to deal with the rampant corruption that took flight. I certainly don't think you can blame Bill Clinton for some right wing Israeli nut killing Rabin and in the process snuffing out whatever momentum he had gained on the peace process. Ultimately, it isn't the US's responsibility to solve either of those issues, it is the US's responsibility to advance its own interests but the bulk of the work on everything from Russia to Palestine to North Korea has to be accomplished by the political actors in those places. If they don't then that's on them.
 
None of these items are failures on the part of any third party. The breakup of the Soviet Union was bound to result in an orgy of corruption resulting from the jostling among the ex-Soviet power structure. A totalitarian state isn't going to smoothly transition to an advanced Democracy in less than a generation and the transition has to be driven by domestic political will, not by prodding from the outside, otherwise it won't last..


There is a lot of evidence that the US actively encouraged this approach despite opposition from the people. It was American economists, sent from various US universities by the US govt, that advised the new states on how to divide state assets; it was these economists who advised the severe reduction or destruction of social provisions leading a protracted (in some cases unresolved) slowdown in births and a sharp spike in deaths, stagnation/reduction in mean and median incomes, and a severe break in social structures. Finally, it was US cash and strategists sent by Clinton himself, and a loan facilitated by him at a strategically crucial time, that enabled Yeltsin to have his unpopular 2nd term (at the end of which come Putin).

The stats are here:
Russian birth/death rate
Other countries did not have the same recovery post-2000.
Uniform fall, uneven recovery of incomes across the bloc
The public opinion is here: https://www.levada.ru/en/tag/the-ussr/
*picke out the relevant ones here and here
This is the stuff about Yeltsin's re-election: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris-yeltsin
Finally, the role of US economists alongside the IMF in shaping the Soviet bloc post-1991: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/09/russia.artsandhumanities
 
Last edited:
I don't think any US President would've been any different since there was nothing that could've been done form the outside to deal with the rampant corruption that took flight. I certainly don't think you can blame Bill Clinton for some right wing Israeli nut killing Rabin and in the process snuffing out whatever momentum he had gained on the peace process. Ultimately, it isn't the US's responsibility to solve either of those issues, it is the US's responsibility to advance its own interests but the bulk of the work on everything from Russia to Palestine to North Korea has to be accomplished by the political actors in those places. If they don't then that's on them.

As I said, now that we have 25 years of history, its safe to conclude that the suggestions the US made to Russia, which Russia basically followed, were ideological and ended up as a failure. Based on what is known of HW Bush and Ross Perot and for specific reasons on how their policy differs from Clinton's neo-liberalism, I am fairly convinced they could not have been worse than Clinton and most likely would have been better.

Based on the bolded, I would again judge the Clinton presidency more a failure than a success based on that criteria. There is a reason Clinton has been dropping on the historians rankings of Presidents. I think he will probably continue to drop on the historian rankings for another 5 years and probably finish in the bottom 50% of US Presidents. Maybe I will be wrong but that's the trend I see.
 
There is a lot of evidence that the US actively encouraged this approach despite opposition from the people. It was American economists, sent from various US universities by the US govt, that advised the new states on how to divide state assets; it was these economists who advised the severe reduction or destruction of social provisions leading a protracted (in some cases unresolved) slowdown in births and a sharp spike in deaths, stagnation/reduction in mean and median incomes, and a severe break in social structures. Finally, i was US cash and strategists sent by Clinton himself, and a loan facilitated by him at a strategically crucial time, that enabled Yeltsin to have his hated 2nd term.

The stats are here:
Russian birth/death rate
Other countries did not have the same recovery post-2000.
Uniform fall, uneven recovery of incomes
The public opinion is here: https://www.levada.ru/en/tag/the-ussr/
This is the stuff about Yeltsin's re-election: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris-yeltsin
Finally, the role of US economists alongside the IMF in shaping the Soviet bloc post-1991: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/09/russia.artsandhumanities

Sure, sending experts to advise is a completely reasonable olive branch to extend to a country that is in economic freefall after its system of governance just collapsed. They shouldn't however be expected to single handedly transform the economy that had no concept of capitalism and was coming off 60 plus years of full on corruption.
 
Sure, sending experts to advise is a completely reasonable olive branch to extend to a country that is in economic freefall after its system of governance just collapsed. They shouldn't however be expected to single handedly transform the economy that had no concept of capitalism and was coming off 60 plus years of full on corruption.

They transformed it. In the wrong direction. And enriched (among others) themselves.
I wouldn't call it an olive branch.
 
As I said, now that we have 25 years of history, its safe to conclude that the suggestions the US made to Russia, which Russia basically followed, were ideological and ended up as a failure. Based on what is known of HW Bush and Ross Perot and for specific reasons on how their policy differs from Clinton's neo-liberalism, I am fairly convinced they could not have been worse than Clinton and most likely would have been better.

Based on the bolded, I would again judge the Clinton presidency more a failure than a success based on that criteria. There is a reason Clinton has been dropping on the historians rankings of Presidents. I think he will probably continue to drop on the historian rankings for another 5 years and probably finish in the bottom 50% of US Presidents. Maybe I will be wrong but that's the trend I see.

Suggestions are just that, there was no expectation that they would magically stablize a highly corrupt system. From a strictly policy standpoint, Bill Clinton's presidency will be remembered fairly positively - balanced budgets, budget surpluses, attempts to move to a government sponsored health care system, allowing gays to serve in the military, collaborative foreign policy platforms etc When contrasted to the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford et al he will be at or near the top of the list.
 
They transformed it. In the wrong direction. And enriched (among others) themselves.
I wouldn't call it an olive branch.

The Russians did that by themselves. The US had no ability or responsibility to save them from their own corruption.
 
Why do i bother including links with my post

I checked out the links. Not sure what the graphs are supposed to suggest relative to this debate. There is no realistic scenario that the Russia of the 90s could've been immediately stable and prosperous given the system they just came out of. Corruption was going to happen irrespective of which approach anyone applied.
 
Suggestions are just that, there was no expectation that they would magically stablize a highly corrupt system. From a strictly policy standpoint, Bill Clinton's presidency will be remembered fairly positively - balanced budgets, budget surpluses, attempts to move to a government sponsored health care system, allowing gays to serve in the military, collaborative foreign policy platforms etc When contrasted to the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Ford et al he will be at or near the top of the list.

There is a reaaon he is dropping down the historian rankings. Dont have time for all but in short

He was on the wrong side of history with his acceleration of the war on drugs, increase in private prisons and asymmetry of drug enforcement. He achieved that balanced budget by cutting social safety nets (which some believe should have been done very different) and downsizing the military (many disagree with how he did this).

Ironic you bring up Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Combine that with DOMA and the Clinton "progressive" message to LGBT was:

Hey y'all , we'll let you risk your life in the military but you cant get married or visit your spouse in the hospital if they get injured.
 
I checked out the links. Not sure what the graphs are supposed to suggest relative to this debate. There is no realistic scenario that the Russia of the 90s could've been immediately stable and prosperous given the system they just came out of. Corruption was going to happen irrespective of which approach anyone applied.

More people died and less people were born (something that continues to today). Incomes fell and in some cases haven't recovered. This is not just a lack of prosperity or stability as you describe it, it was (is) an increase in poverty and death.
You are denying that the economic advisors in charge of the process has nothing to do with it. Sure, they were probably subservient to Russian politicians, but it does seem like their advise created more problems.
 
There is a reaaon he is dropping down the historian rankings. Dont have time for all but in short

He was on the wrong side of history with his acceleration of the war on drugs, increase in private prisons and asymmetry of drug enforcement. He achieved that balanced budget by cutting social safety nets (which aome believe should have been done sifferent) and downsizing the military (many disagree with how he did this).

So was Reagan, so was Bush, so was Nixon etc etc. The anti-drug abuse act of 1986 took place under....not Bill Clinton. Weed was put under schedule I in 1970 under....not Bill Clinton.

Ironic you bring up Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Combine that with DOMA and the Clinton "progressive" message to LGBT was:

Hey y'all , we'll let you risk your life in the military but you cant get married or visit your spouse in the hospital if they get injured.

What was the policy like before Clinton came into office ? Could gays serve in the military and not get booted out if their sexual orientation was revealed ? Could the military kick people out based on a suspicion that someone was gay ?
 
More people died and less people were born (something that continues to today). Incomes fell and in some cases haven't recovered. This is not just a lack of prosperity or stability as you describe it, it was (is) an increase in poverty and death.
You are denying that the economic advisors in charge of the process has nothing to do with it. Sure, they were probably subservient to Russian politicians, but it does seem like their advise created more problems.

So the low Russian birth rate is the US's fault ?
 
How dare she crack a joke about how she lost to a rapist with a wet log for a brain. She lost because she was completely out of touch with most of the country, hired advisors who were completely out of touch with most of the country, picked the most forgettable VP nominee in decades, was incredibly unpopular and ran a horrible campaign centered around "get a load of this guy". Then after she blew it she had the nerve to criticize the participants in the women's March for not doing more for her. She should take her millions and do something productive like Jimmy Carter did. The least she could do is shut the feck up about politics. Her opinion is literally worthless. She lost to a junior senator with a name that sounded like an amalgamation of every boogeyman the country hated at the time, she ran a racist campaign against him and then a sizable chunk of her voters went over to mccain. She then had a few years as secretary of state where she helped turn Libya into an open air slave market. She used a private server for official government business, which is not a huge deal but absolutely an example of clintonian paranoia. And then she lost to a dementia addled game show host. She and her team legitimized trump and hoped to face him and then used the same strategy that didn't work for the Republicans. She said single payer would never ever happen. Her boy Schumer said their strategy of alienating working class voters would pay off when they got twice as many country club Republicans to cross over and vote for her. Well guess what, they fecking hate her and they hate Democrats and the fact that these absolute weapons thought it might just shows how out of touch they are with normal people in this country. Why do they think people are Republicans? Because they care about small government? No its because they hate Democrats, they hate effete snooty libs who spend thousands of dollars to see Hamilton. They hate poor people. They hate people who read the New Yorker. They hate gays. They hate blacks. They hate foreigners. The republican party is the party of resentment and trump is the personiication of that rage. They would never have gone to her and her team would have known that if they had even one person whose career path wasn't unpaid internship > think tank > congressional staffer > dnc leech. They would have known that if they bothered to think about and listen to people in this country who dont have trust funds or who didn't go to Wellesley or Cornell or Northwestern. The Clintons helped turn the supposed left wing party into a party that stands for wall street, imperialism and drone strikes but sometimes they wrap the drones in rainbow flags before they blow up wedding parties half way around the world. They would have known how much people hated them if they ever spent time outside of the acela corridor that wasnt a VIP trip to Lollapalooza.

What I dont get is how you people arent more mad at her than I am. I hate her and everything she stands for. I think she would have been a terrible president who directly caused a ton of human misery. You guys like her. You guys think she would have been a good president. How can you not be so angry at her for blowing the easiest election ever? How can you laugh when she posts glib remarks about how she lost the election to the hamburglar? If Bernie got the nomination and blew it by running a bad campaign with a discredited strategy I would never forgive him. But for you guys it's like there is no culpability on her or her team. She fecking blew it. She's a terrible politician and a terrible person and the least she could do is shut the feck up about it.
Good post.

I'm not even sure about the next election. Something seems to be wrong with the Democratic Party, it's hard to tell what they stand for nowadays.
 
So the low Russian birth rate is the US's fault ?

It was partially the fault of the US-sent "olive branch" advisors. Their failure/success in the economic realm can be seen in poverty/death rates. This is not a complicated point.
 
Analogy: Economic failures in the USSR were partially the fault of the planning staff, even though the party leadership should take more of the blame.
 
Analogy: Economic failures in the USSR were partially the fault of the planning staff, even though the party leadership should take more of the blame.

Fair enough, I just don't accept this as a remotely plausible or satisfying explanation. Sending experts to help advise and assist is supposed to be a support function for a government to use its own political will to get back on its feet, not as a device to solve all the problems in said country. The UN (and US) for instance, routinely send all sorts of material, financial, and other support into developing countries and war zones to aid, advise, and assist - but the fundemental responsibility always remains on the said country to fix its own issues through domestic political will. In the case of post-Soviet Russia, no amount of outsider experts or aid would've prevented the country from having major difficulties in the 90s and beyond. That's simply the price you pay for 7 decades of communism.
 
That's a great message, especially in contrast to Hillary's deplorable one last cycle.

I’m certainly no Hillary fan but that quote was twisted something rotten.
 
That's a great message, especially in contrast to Hillary's deplorable one last cycle.
Yeah it is a nice message. Bernie seems like an empathetic and caring person.

What was Hillary's message that you're referencing?
 
Referring to Trump supporters as being in a basket of deplorables.
context is key though.

"you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. "

not sure the exact percentage but i would say a good chunk of his supporters are all of those tings mentioned and what the deplorable was in reference to.