Hillary Clinton tells friends she's leaving 2020 door open

[Fanatical Meat]

All our Breibert reading members:

Fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap

Pause to rest hand

fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap

Ohhhh lock Her Up! Oh yeah....

fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap

*should I report myself for excessive fapping?

 

[realibrad]

No of course people didn't blame gore or Kerry for their loss! You never heard anyone say gore lost because he was boring and uninspiring and they certainly didn't say the same about Kerry or Clinton!



God damn! Not only are you an annoying quibbler, you are a fucking idiot too!

Again, its not the same. The loss to Bush was felt very differently than the loss to Trump. If you are unaware of this, then you are likely unable to understand any further discussion. Hillary is tainted by her loss in ways that Gore and Kerry were not. Her loss was much bigger because Trump was much worse.

 

[blankslate]

All our Breibert reading members:

Might I remind you that the OP's source was CNN

And Clinton's loss to Trump was an error in thinking a popular vote win would surely lead to an Electoral College win.

Sadly for us it did not. While it would not have been my 100% ideal situation as a result of 2016 I certainly recognize that a President Hillary Clinton would be a much more stable and as such better situation than we currently have now with Trump. It would be nice I think to see more of our politicians talking about abolishing or somehow reforming the EC but either they don't or the mainstream media doesn't cover it much when they do.

Now to those who are poopooing a certain person's record in the Senate to bolster SoS Clinton's let me ask you this these questions

In whose campaign did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spend time as a volunteer? (sure AOC is just a newly elected Representative but the fact that the right is spending so much time trying to paint her as a know-nothing media creation is imho telling. The fact that she has been able to turn these attacks around and make them look foolish might be a sign that she has a talent for communication that ranks among the best).
AOC might be a flash in the pan but she has gotten herself a place on the finance committee so we'll have to wait and see. But if it turns out that her future accomplishments match the attention she is currently receiving then the right wing pundits were correct in their instincts that she is a threat to their side

Whose 2016 campaign positions have gotten such traction with many of the newer Democratic members of Congress and become popular in a manner such that even more centrist candidates(going by their past statements and actions) so far for 2020 in have at least given lip service to supporting them?
These policy positions also tend to be popular across many political demographics because they would help the middle class (which is populated by people who hold many different political views.


I can tell you that the answer to those questions is not Hillary Clinton


__________

*edited some grammar sound bad*

 

[ivwshane]

Again, its not the same. The loss to Bush was felt very differently than the loss to Trump. If you are unaware of this, then you are likely unable to understand any further discussion. Hillary is tainted by her loss in ways that Gore and Kerry were not. Her loss was much bigger because Trump was much worse.

Oh so it's the same but worse? Lol you played yourself, now kindly fuck off.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Might I remind you that the OP's source was CNN

And Clinton's loss to Trump was an error in thinking a popular vote win would surely lead to an Electoral College win.

Sadly for us it did not. While it would not have been my 100% ideal situation as a result of 2016 I certainly recognize that a President Hillary Clinton would be a much more stable and as such better situation than we currently have now with Trump. It would be nice I think to see more of our politicians talking about abolishing or somehow reforming the EC but either they don't or the mainstream media doesn't cover it much when they do.

Now to those who are poopooing a certain person's record in the Senate to bolster SoS Clinton's let me ask you this these questions

In whose campaign did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spend time as a volunteer? (sure AOC is just a newly elected Representative but the fact that the right is spending so much time trying to paint her as a know-nothing media creation is imho telling. The fact that she has been able to turn these attacks around and make them look foolish might be a sign that she has a talent for communication that ranks among the best).
AOC might be a flash in the pan but she has gotten herself a place on the finance committee so we'll have to wait and see. But if it turns out that her future accomplishments match the attention she is currently receiving then the right wing pundits were correct in their instincts that she is a threat to their side

Whose 2016 campaign positions have gotten such traction with many of the newer Democratic members of Congress and become popular in a manner such that even more centrist candidates(going by their past statements and actions) so far for 2020 in have at least given lip service to supporting them?
These policy positions also tend to be popular across many political demographics because they would help the middle class (which is populated by people who hold many different political views.


I can tell you that the answer to those questions are not Hillary Clinton


__________

Maybe but let’s remember a candidate that has lost has never run a second time, when I say lost I’m not talking about the primary. I think everyone is like me, Hillary blew it because she was boring and didn’t do some of the hard work. That is why she lost, that is why she’d lose again, that is why I’d never vote for her in a primary.

 

[realibrad]

Oh so it's the same but worse? Lol you played yourself, now kindly fuck off.

How is that your take away? I literally stay not the same. I suppose they share that all lost, but, those losses are not the same in scale and scope.

Why is it that you think so many people in this thread that are on the Left do not want her to run again?

@Indus is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@BoomerD is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@UNCjigga is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@Thump553 is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@DrunkenSano is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.

 

[ivwshane]

Might I remind you that the OP's source was CNN

And Clinton's loss to Trump was an error in thinking a popular vote win would surely lead to an Electoral College win.

Sadly for us it did not. While it would not have been my 100% ideal situation as a result of 2016 I certainly recognize that a President Hillary Clinton would be a much more stable and as such better situation than we currently have now with Trump. It would be nice I think to see more of our politicians talking about abolishing or somehow reforming the EC but either they don't or the mainstream media doesn't cover it much when they do.

Now to those who are poopooing a certain person's record in the Senate to bolster SoS Clinton's let me ask you this these questions

In whose campaign did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spend time as a volunteer? (sure AOC is just a newly elected Representative but the fact that the right is spending so much time trying to paint her as a know-nothing media creation is imho telling. The fact that she has been able to turn these attacks around and make them look foolish might be a sign that she has a talent for communication that ranks among the best).
AOC might be a flash in the pan but she has gotten herself a place on the finance committee so we'll have to wait and see. But if it turns out that her future accomplishments match the attention she is currently receiving then the right wing pundits were correct in their instincts that she is a threat to their side

Whose 2016 campaign positions have gotten such traction with many of the newer Democratic members of Congress and become popular in a manner such that even more centrist candidates(going by their past statements and actions) so far for 2020 in have at least given lip service to supporting them?
These policy positions also tend to be popular across many political demographics because they would help the middle class (which is populated by people who hold many different political views.


I can tell you that the answer to those questions is not Hillary Clinton


__________

*edited some grammar sound bad*

I'm not sure why you think it matters what campaign she worked on. I'm sure you also realize that plenty of Bernie backed candidates also lost in the last election. I'm also not sure what your point is about what policy positions are now popular versus what was popular several years ago, do you think the obvious policy failures of trump and Republicans had anything to do with the policy shift?

Here is what you aren't getting; Bernie did one thing great and that was to get people fired up, something Clinton was unable to do. Bernie is great at politicking, it's why he's a career politician. Hillary? No, she sucked at that. However Bernie has an absolutely horrible record on actual accomplishments for someone who has been in congress for as long as he has. That can't be said of Clinton whose time in public office was a lot shorter and who had many accomplishments.

Now as far as AOC goes, she's definitely a force to be reckoned with. Why? Because she's not afraid to back down against the usual tactics from the right.

The question then becomes; is AOC gonna be another Bernie sanders, good at politicking but not much more or is she gonna be another bill Clinton, a great politicker with actual policy accomplishments.

I hope the latter.

 

[blankslate]

Maybe but let’s remember a candidate that has lost has never run a second time, when I say lost I’m not talking about the primary. I think everyone is like me, Hillary blew it because she was boring and didn’t do some of the hard work. That is why she lost, that is why she’d lose again, that is why I’d never vote for her in a primary.

I don't disagree. It seemed to me from the your post #76 that you were implying that anyone who didn't want to hear about Hillary running again was a Breitbart Troll.
Apologies for that incorrect assessment.


__________

 

[fskimospy]

You are ignorant which is to be expected. Many on the Left are unhappy because in part they blame her for losing to Trump. Bernie Bros are for sure part of that group, because, they believe the DND and HRC conspired to rig the primary for her. There are also people on the Left that think she was too empty and emotionless and that played a part in her loss. You then mix that in with the belief that Trump is the worst president and that makes it different. Her mistakes, her faults are in part why she lost to Trump.

The hate for Trump is nowhere close to the hate for Bush. Further, people do not blame Gore or Kerry for their losses like they do Hillary.

That Bush was the worst ever and that Al Gore lost an easily winnable election because he was empty and emotionless is EXACTLY what Gore was criticized for.

Like basically verbatim, down to the letter.

 

[blankslate]

The question then becomes; is AOC gonna be another Bernie sanders, good at politicking but not much more or is she gonna be another bill Clinton, a great politicker with actual policy accomplishments.

I hope the latter.

you're incorrect in your assessment of the effect Bernie has had in politics...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
While he didn't go the normal route to get his ideas placed into law and that allows his detractors to act like he was a do nothing Congress member it is far from the truth.

And my assessment of his policies still stands despite your attempted distraction of talking about republican policies... most democratic members these days do not agree with them except for the Blue Dogs (Centrists might agree with them in a quid pro quo exchange on legislation)

Here is why it matters whose campaign AOC has volunteered in does matter and here is why. Had she just felt the "passion" to campaign for Hillary it would have been in service of the same old centrist Democratic positions which the Right Wing doesn't fear as much as AOC's current policy positions.

Additionally, the positions AOC supports (which can be argued was partially imparted upon her by he time in the Bernie campaign) likely won't lead her to pass a 97 Telecom Act (which allowed conglomerations to buy up radio stations and blare conservative talk radio almost exclusively in a single market, even when a few of those stations would have been more profitable with a more liberal lineup) or Graham Leach Bliley (which some argue helped bring about the 2008 Great Recession).


__________

edited 4 glaring punctuation errors

 

[DrunkenSano]

And yet, she was a senator, and was SoS. How can a failure get to those positions? She may not be the best, but, she has some ability to get to important places.

Trump is the President of the United States. He's a massive failure and he still got that position. That's how dogshit our country's politics is.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't disagree. It seemed to me from the your post #76 that you were implying that anyone who didn't want to hear about Hillary running again was a Breitbart Troll.
Apologies for that incorrect assessment.


__________

All Breibert trolls have a hard on for Hillary to run again, not all who don’t want her to run again are Breibert trolls.

 

[Vic]

How is that your take away? I literally stay not the same. I suppose they share that all lost, but, those losses are not the same in scale and scope.

Why is it that you think so many people in this thread that are on the Left do not want her to run again?

@Indus is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@BoomerD is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@UNCjigga is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@Thump553 is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.
@DrunkenSano is not a Trump supporter, yet does not want her to run again.

No one wants Hillary to run again except the hardcore Trump crowd.

 

[ivwshane]

you're incorrect in your assessment of the effect Bernie has had in politics...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
While he didn't go the normal route to get his ideas placed into law and that allows his detractors to act like he was a do nothing Congress member it is far from the truth.

And my assessment of his policies still stands despite your attempted distraction of talking about republican policies... most democratic members these days do not agree with them except for the Blue Dogs (Centrists might agree with them in a quid pro quo exchange on legislation)

Here is why it matters whose campaign AOC has volunteered in does matter and here is why. Had she just felt the "passion" to campaign for Hillary it would have been in service of the same old centrist Democratic positions which the Right Wing doesn't fear as much as AOC's current policy positions.

Additionally, the positions AOC supports (which can be argued was partially imparted upon her by he time in the Bernie campaign) likely won't lead her to pass a 97 Telecom Act (which allowed conglomerations to buy up radio stations and blare conservative talk radio almost exclusively in a single market, even when a few of those stations would have been more profitable with a more liberal lineup) or Graham Leach Bliley (which some argue helped bring about the 2008 Great Recession).


__________

edited 4 glaring punctuation errors

LOL, yes the amendment king, wow! Powerful stuff!


None of his ideas got into law! He simply made bills less shitty. You are simply reaching.

I get it, Bernie bro.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to republican policies. My point was that progressive policies have become more palletable since Clinton ran, in part due to Bernie's ability to get people fired up and due to the results of trump and Republicans horrible policies.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the telecom act unless you, again, missed my point, which was that I hope AOC actually has the capability to get things done and not just be, essentially all talk like Bernie has been.

 

[ivwshane]

No one wants Hillary to run again except the hardcore Trump crowd.

It's why fake stories like these are put out, to get the lemmings fired up.

Their Playlist is old and tired:
Anti Hillary
Anti pelosi
Illegals
Guns
Abortion
God
Big government

None of which they give a damn about.

 

[realibrad]

That Bush was the worst ever and that Al Gore lost an easily winnable election because he was empty and emotionless is EXACTLY what Gore was criticized for.

Like basically verbatim, down to the letter.

But Bush was not Trump. Losing to Trump makes people feel different.

 

[realibrad]

No one wants Hillary to run again except the hardcore Trump crowd.

Right. But, there is disagreement as to why those on the left might be upset with her.

 

[fskimospy]

But Bush was not Trump. Losing to Trump makes people feel different.

At the time Bush was Trump. If I remember you would have been pretty young in 2000 so you may not remember this very well but I remember it vividly. You could seriously cut Clinton's name out of your criticisms of her campaign and insert Gore's and that was exactly what people were saying in 2001/2002. They never told him he needed to 'go away'.

 

[zinfamous]

BS. Being able to see who you can use to get to the top is a huge talent. Its not even a bad thing really. She has the ability to usually see what is going to win out, and position herself to be part of it. She is not perfect, but, to say she has no talent is wrong.

She was also extremely effective and ( actually quite popular among Republicans) when serving in the senate. It's the actual truth: the GOP always liked working with her, but never displayed shame when it was necessary to turn her into a demon witch to advance their own ends, when she dared put herself in electoral competition against them.

As SecState, she grabbed Putin's balls and twisted them, pretty much why Putin has had a persistent ass pain related to her, and very specifically targeted all of his efforts against her.

These are only some of the actual real world truths about Hilary, but you'll never see the derposphere communicating this to their derpizens.

 

[realibrad]

At the time Bush was Trump. If I remember you would have been pretty young in 2000 so you may not remember this very well but I remember it vividly. You could seriously cut Clinton's name out of your criticisms of her campaign and insert Gore's and that was exactly what people were saying in 2001/2002. They never told him he needed to 'go away'.

I was young, but, I was aware enough to see how upset people were. I also remember how FL made it all much worse.

But, things died down a whole bunch after the election because of 9/11. But, even still, the anger because of Trump is far larger. Bush was not seen anywhere near as bad as Trump was during their elections.

Yes, some of the same criticisms about their personalities were the same. That is not what makes it different. What makes it different is that Hillary lost to Trump, and Gore lost to Bush.

Fair or unfair, people look at Hillary and ask "how could you mess this up so badly".

 

[realibrad]

She was also extremely effective and ( actually quite popular among Republicans) when serving in the senate. It's the actual truth: the GOP always liked working with her, but never displayed shame when it was necessary to turn her into a demon witch to advance their own ends, when she dared put herself in electoral competition against them.

As SecState, she grabbed Putin's balls and twisted them, pretty much why Putin has had a persistent ass pain related to her, and very specifically targeted all of his efforts against her.

These are only some of the actual real world truths about Hilary, but you'll never see the derposphere communicating this to their derpizens.

Yep, that is a good point too. Putin was furious at her for what she did to him, and, was a major factor into his ops against her. Putin felt she was effective. Oh the irony lol.

 

[ivwshane]

I was young, but, I was aware enough to see how upset people were. I also remember how FL made it all much worse.

But, things died down a whole bunch after the election because of 9/11. But, even still, the anger because of Trump is far larger. Bush was not seen anywhere near as bad as Trump was during their elections.

Yes, some of the same criticisms about their personalities were the same. That is not what makes it different. What makes it different is that Hillary lost to Trump, and Gore lost to Bush.

Fair or unfair, people look at Hillary and ask "how could you mess this up so badly".

Wow! What amazing and brilliant insight!

Folks let me repeat this because of how profound this statement is:

What makes this different is that Hillary lost to trump and gore lost to Bush!

Thanks for pointing out this amazing revelation, quibbles the quibblier!

 

[glenn1]

Maybe but let’s remember a candidate that has lost has never run a second time, when I say lost I’m not talking about the primary. I think everyone is like me, Hillary blew it because she was boring and didn’t do some of the hard work. That is why she lost, that is why she’d lose again, that is why I’d never vote for her in a primary.

Never since Nixon who lost the general election in 1960 and won in 1968 and 1972?

 

[realibrad]

Wow! What amazing and brilliant insight!

Folks let me repeat this because of how profound this statement is:

What makes this different is that Hillary lost to trump and gore lost to Bush!

Thanks for pointing out this amazing revelation, quibbles the quibblier!

Well, that's not wrong.

If you are a cop, and you let a guy who stole a candy bar, get away its meh. You have the same cop let a murderer get away, and its very different.

Do you understand that concept? I'm guessing no.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, that's not wrong.

If you are a cop, and you let a guy who stole a candy bar, get away its meh. You have the same cop let a murderer get away, and its very different.

Do you understand that concept? I'm guessing no.

Oh now we are talking about murder and not elections? I guess some elections aren't really elections now, according to you.

So let me see if I understand your quibble correctly here:

Hillary's election loss was different because it was a different election than past elections.
Petty crime doesn't equal murder therefore an election doesn't equal an election because they are different.


LOL! Seriously, fuck off. No, seriously.