What do you expect would have happened by now with Hillary victory

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:

Catnip1024:
Exactly the fricking same, the other way round.

No, this is bullshit. This equivalency between Trump and Clinton is bullshit. I hate hearing it, because it's bullshit. It's nihilistic, flagrantly illogical bullshit that willfully ignores the vast gulf in competence, qualifications and temperament between Trump and Clinton. It's apathetic people trying to conceal their apathy behind a simplistic layer of pseudo-principles.

Whatever your opinion of Clinton's 90s neoliberalism, she was a better candidate than Trump. She simply was. I challenge anyone who disagrees to watch fifteen minutes of one of the presidential debates. Watch her talk, then watch him talk, and then try to say that they're "equally bad." You can't. It's impossible. She's an accomplished stateswoman with three decades of political experience. He's a demented toad masquerading as a man for the purposes of tax avoidance.

Clinton was very far from perfect. If 2016 accomplished anything of note, it was drawing attention to her flaws and the flaws in her style of politics. But there's a big difference between "flawed" and "Donald Trump." One is a statue with a wonky nose; the other is a snowman made out of burning turds.

Actually, I agree with Catnip, but in a different way.

-Not being able to get anything done.

We're saying if Hillary won here. Not if the Democrats won. We would still have tons of republicans who will vote out of spite or on the party line. I see there being very little major sweeping plans that Hillary would put forward that the Republicans would listen to.

-Every Hitch in the road being thrown in the President's face.

Trump's Hitches are huge, lie filled, throwing people under the bus, and are boarding sedition (well... before he was elected, anyway). Every instance of a Hillary Hitch would have all the detrators coming out of the woodwork with giant red arrows saying "DO YOU SEE THAT YOUR EXPERIMENT FAILED?! SHE ISN'T PERFECT!! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING A WOMAN IN OFFICE!!"

-Natural Disasters

Trump handled it poorly, that can't be ignored. But does anyone remember 2009 when the oil spill happened? All that was on the news channels were Republicans blaming Obama for it and wondering why it wasn't fixed yet.

-The election

Russian Influence vs Emails and Benghazi.

I honestly think it would have been more of the same. But instead of the drama being caused by the President, you'll have drama caused by everyone who hated the fact that the president is Hillary and they would go out of their way to blow everything up.

I wouldn't be terrified of having to log on to Facebook every day to see what he's done/said now.

I would be able to talk to some of my friends without having the screaming voice in the back of my head saying that they don't know right from wrong, that they support Nazi tactics and methods.

My dad wouldn't be watching the news every night for three hours, constantly saying "Oh SHUT UP!" whenever Republicans try to spin their racism or whatever other B.S. they're pushing.

My gay Hispanic friend wouldn't have to worry about what might happen to him in the next few years if trends continue.

I would still be able to look people from my church in the eye, instead of avoiding them and wondering how we read the same book if our morals are so different.

I wouldn't have to go to bed and lay in the dark, telling myself that it's going to be all right and to stop getting angry because it's not healthy.

I wouldn't have to wonder why science and reason fail on such an epic scale in the face of so many people.

I wouldn't have to fight the urge to key someone's car whenever I see a bumper stick, or spray paint "I support pussy grabbing!" on their doors, or ask the father if he fucks his ten year old daughter.

My life in general would be better.

inu-kun:
snip

Fix the reality first. Then we'll speculate about what Hillary could had done wrong as much as you want.

The GOP's hate boner for Hilary would actually be relevant instead of a pathetic distraction from the idiot in the office, that's something that would be different.

Seanchaidh:

I'm sure Haiti, Yemen, Libya, and Honduras appreciate your evenhanded devotion to looking at the Trump administration without considering the likely alternative in this political point scoring thread.

Could one argue that Hillary supporters might at least be a bit more skeptical of the U.S. involvement of, now, starving an entire country because the Saudis royally got their arses kicked in a conventional engagement? Honestly, I was tired of the whole 'pivot to Asia' Democrat nonsense under Obama because I have to live in the place that was being 'pivoted' to continue some weird non-war with China.

Clinton is far more clever concerning geostrategy (given her longstanding career in foreign policy) so she's probably a more scary U.S. politician than Trump. That being said, the 'Trump effect' is farmore embarassing and as much as Australians might not have appreciated Obama's weird take on proxy trade-warcraft that Clinton wouldhave ultimately persisted, it's preferable to just simply being insane in public office and taking a sledgehammer to the fine-handed surgery of foreign policy.

ObsidianJones:
Und Snip

I'm not sure I can fully agree with your agree-in-a-different-way statement on all points, personally. I'm speaking entirely on the amount of hitches.

On the one side, you have everyone with a brain in their head who said Trump is a moron going "I told you so" because...well...they did, and the apologists are basically origami figures with all the manner in which they must twist themselves stupid to agree with the orange-faced git. It's basically epic call-out on what should've been obvious.

On the other side, you are right that there would be all kinds of sexist remarks from people...but I don't think to the amount or effectiveness that you would think. I rather compare it more to the way people reacted to Obama. Every person who went out of their way to object to the man was a disgusting, hate-filled racist...but they couldn't bring themselves to admit it because they were also spineless politicians.

On the population side, I can tell you it'd probably be an endless tug-of-war, because instead of any gender at all - including the LGBT crowd - all shouting at a blatantly stupid, racist, sexist, greedy, burbling piece of shit...the most anyone could bring to Hillary is sexism and a complaint that she's a bit crap. The ratio is massively different, and you know there'd be feminist backlash, regardless of who's in the right.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the two sides are equal. Trump epically reminds me of an analogy I've made for a bunch of guys down in a hole digging further and further, all while it's raining with lightning and a 400-foot lightning rod is sticking out of said hole while shouting "DIG FASTER!". If there is a better analogy for completely hopeless idiocy, I haven't found it or invented it yet.

bastardofmelbourne:
It's nihilistic, flagrantly illogical bullshit that willfully ignores the vast gulf in competence, qualifications and temperament between Trump and Clinton.

Competence, qualifications, and temperament are not terribly positive when attached to a person that is not acting in good faith. A competent steward of an immoral plutocratic capitalist empire is one that frustrates the political interests of the traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party rather than accomplishes them. A calm, rational disposition, or indeed passionate leadership tempered by intelligence and wisdom-- is great if utilized in service to representing the public, but if it is governed by some other desire which often finds itself at odds with the public, then it is a negative. And frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary Clinton ever demonstrated a terribly significant amount of competence, at least not at any task we should care about. First lady and senator and on the board of Wal-Mart and secretary of state are positions that she inhabited, but there is precious little evidence that she was notably good at doing the tasks of those positions because finding oneself in those positions is not appreciably related to much aside from self-promotion. What's she famous for? Fundraising from wealthy folk. OK. For many candidates, such an ability is positively related to becoming president, but it's difficult to see how it should make anyone a good president.

Obama was competent, well tempered, and any faults in his presidency were not likely due to lack of qualifications (though many have been inaccurately blamed on such). So he was able to quite deftly defuse the impact of the Occupy movement, ramp up the drone war, and resolve the financial crisis in favor of banks without enough people caring about those things to get him out of office. He was able to quietly tilt things more in favor of the wealthy rather than doing so overtly like Trump is. He was able to sell an unclear vision of "hope" and "change" without delivering very much of either. His rhetoric was easily enough painted as socialist while his policy direction was anything but, which is ideal for maintaining a stable late capitalism in the short term as well as unfairly and inaccurately discrediting socialism in the medium term.

Obama's 2008 campaign was much like Trump's: full of dishonesty. Obama's dishonesty was far more artful, however. His brazen lies were far fewer. Instead, he presented a vision of himself which would turn out to be out of step with his actions in office, and he was able to raise expectations that he would pursue certain policy goals without actually making it a campaign promise to do so-- the Employee Free Choice Act is a good example of this. It had passed the House and had a majority in the Senate (including then-Senator Obama) in 2007; it was filibustered. Labor Unions expected Obama to pursue it again if elected in the 2008 campaign, especially if he had better conditions in the Senate. Democrats in 2009 had for a time a filibuster-proof majority, but, among other things, the White House was silent and it died again before coming to a vote.

Competence, qualifications, and temperament are somewhere between meaningless and destructive without common interest.

Seanchaidh:
Competence, qualifications, and temperament are somewhere between meaningless and destructive without common interest.

I agree with this sentiment, but I disagree with your absolutist assessment of Clinton's interests.

Clinton was not a socialist; that's true enough. But she supported a list of social programs that would have greatly benefited low-income earners, programs that any social democrat would swiftly get behind. Clinton wouldn't be trying her damnedest to break down Obamacare as part of a scheme to cut taxes for very rich people. She wouldn't be defunding federal programs that provide health insurance to poor children. She wouldn't be gutting EPA regulations that protect poor communities from being polluted willy-nilly. She had a thirty billion dollar policy program to help former coal miners find new work.

The basic math is that you had a candidate who was competent and qualified and who was maybe, let's say, 50/50 working in the interests of Wall Street versus the interests of the American poor. Then you had a candidate who was incompetent, unqualified, and has demonstrated that he would work in the interests of Wall Street 100% of the time to the point where he'd gladly screw over the sick children of poor families just to save money on his tax return - in a way that will probably trigger another financial crisis if it comes to pass.

Clinton wasn't perfect; there was a lot of propping up banks in her platform, and of course there was the TPP and the free-trade policies that led to it. But she had policies that were going to provide clear, tangible benefits for poor people. To the extent that Trump had any such policies, they have evaporated over the course of his first year in office.

I suppose we can to the list 'Wouldn't be staring down the barrel of the end of net neutrality'.

Jux:
I suppose we can to the list 'Wouldn't be staring down the barrel of the end of net neutrality'.

This relies on taking her at her word, which we obviously don't and shouldn't do for Trump, so it's pretty unconvincing.

bastardofmelbourne:
The basic math is that you had a candidate who was competent and qualified and who was maybe, let's say, 50/50 working in the interests of Wall Street versus the interests of the American poor.

The last time we had a Clinton, it was about 80/20.

Why does the fact that we don't and shouldn't take Trump at his word have any bearing on whether we believe Hillary on a particular issue? That's beyond flimsy.

Jux:
Why does the fact that we don't and shouldn't take Trump at his word have any bearing on whether we believe Hillary on a particular issue? That's beyond flimsy.

Because she has public and private positions on issues, something we learned when her private position on that topic was revealed. She's demonstrably secretive and not trustworthy.

We'd be better off, but that's not really saying much.

Trump and his fellows keep acting like Nuremberg never happened.

Seanchaidh:

Jux:
Why does the fact that we don't and shouldn't take Trump at his word have any bearing on whether we believe Hillary on a particular issue? That's beyond flimsy.

Because she has public and private positions on issues, something we learned when her private position on that topic was revealed. She's demonstrably secretive and not trustworthy.

We can trust her to follow the standards set by Obama. I trust someone who wants to suck up to the Democratic party than someone who literally doesnt give a fuck.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
The basic math is that you had a candidate who was competent and qualified and who was maybe, let's say, 50/50 working in the interests of Wall Street versus the interests of the American poor.

The last time we had a Clinton, it was about 80/20.

It doesn't matter how you crunch the arbitrary numbers. Clinton would do some things to benefit poor people, even if you're a pessimist and you assume that the majority of things she would do would benefit rich people. Trump has done zero things to benefit poor people, and everything he does do seems to benefit rich people.

Like, I agree with you. Hillary Clinton wasn't perfect. Obama wasn't perfect. God knows Bill Clinton wasn't perfect. But any one of them would be preferable to the shambling wreck of idiocy that currently inhabits the Oval Office, bitching about Time Magazine and picking fights with black people.

Shit, here's a piece of bad news that wouldn't be happening under Clinton; Mick Mulvaney wouldn't be tapped to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mick Mulvaney has gone on record to say that the CFPB is a "sick, sad joke" and is part of the cohort of Republicans who regularly excoriate the institution for having the gall to try and actually regulate how banks treat their customers. Now he's going to run it. Is that a good sign for financial regulation in the US? Do you think Clinton would've been so eager to tear apart an agency founded by her predecessor that exists to protect poor people from predatory lenders?

I wonder how this would be going down in a Clinton administration: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20492:Democrats-Push-to-Help-Predatory-Payday-Lenders

Oh, inject that sweet, sweet bipartisanship right into my veins.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
The basic math is that you had a candidate who was competent and qualified and who was maybe, let's say, 50/50 working in the interests of Wall Street versus the interests of the American poor.

The last time we had a Clinton, it was about 80/20.

It doesn't matter how you crunch the arbitrary numbers. Clinton would do some things to benefit poor people, even if you're a pessimist and you assume that the majority of things she would do would benefit rich people. Trump has done zero things to benefit poor people, and everything he does do seems to benefit rich people.

Like, I agree with you. Hillary Clinton wasn't perfect. Obama wasn't perfect. God knows Bill Clinton wasn't perfect. But any one of them would be preferable to the shambling wreck of idiocy that currently inhabits the Oval Office, bitching about Time Magazine and picking fights with black people.

Shit, here's a piece of bad news that wouldn't be happening under Clinton; Mick Mulvaney wouldn't be tapped to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mick Mulvaney has gone on record to say that the CFPB is a "sick, sad joke" and is part of the cohort of Republicans who regularly excoriate the institution for having the gall to try and actually regulate how banks treat their customers. Now he's going to run it. Is that a good sign for financial regulation in the US? Do you think Clinton would've been so eager to tear apart an agency founded by her predecessor that exists to protect poor people from predatory lenders?

Not as eager-- or at least not as openly. But you've got to understand, we normally don't pay this much attention to our cabinets in the United States. This is very peculiar in recent history.

Because she has public and private positions on issues, something we learned when her private position on that topic was revealed. She's demonstrably secretive and not trustworthy.

Why not just say that as opposed to tying your reasoning to Trump? And while she may not be a trustworthy individual in some areas, nothing I've seen from her would lead me to believe there would be a departure from the course Wheeler was setting.

Jux:

Because she has public and private positions on issues, something we learned when her private position on that topic was revealed. She's demonstrably secretive and not trustworthy.

Why not just say that as opposed to tying your reasoning to Trump?

I assume you were already aware of how distrusted Hillary Clinton is and ought to be; making the comparison to skepticism of Donald Trump is simply an exhortation to be skeptical here as well for the sake of consistency.

Jux:
And while she may not be a trustworthy individual in some areas, nothing I've seen from her would lead me to believe there would be a departure from the course Wheeler was setting.

http://www.insidesources.com/hillary-clinton-ambivalent-about-net-neutrality-podesta-emails-show/

Also, people against net neutrality have money. That's something else to consider.

Seanchaidh:

The last time we had a Clinton, it was about 80/20.

Sins of the husband, then?

On a side note, 80/20 seems to be about the ratio of your criticism of the failed candidate against your criticism of the actual President (whose own ratio is closer to 95/5).

Obviously, a helluva lot of criticism of Clinton is due. Yet when it's so consistently and extremely one-sided, I have to wonder whether there's a less lofty reason there somewhere.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

The last time we had a Clinton, it was about 80/20.

Sins of the husband, then?

On a side note, 80/20 seems to be about the ratio of your criticism of the failed candidate against your criticism of the actual President (whose own ratio is closer to 95/5).

Obviously, a helluva lot of criticism of Clinton is due. Yet when it's so consistently and extremely one-sided, I have to wonder whether there's a less lofty reason there somewhere.

2016 demonstrated that the primary is more important than the general.

I saw that article. No where there does it make me think she would have departed from the course Wheeler was setting.

Silvanus:
Yet when it's so consistently and extremely one-sided, I have to wonder whether there's a less lofty reason there somewhere.

The alternative is admitting he's wrong about his previous position during the '16 election. It's a hard pill to swallow.

Seanchaidh:

2016 demonstrated that the primary is more important than the general.

To you. Remember, the sacrifices you're willing to make are those dramatically impacting other people.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

2016 demonstrated that the primary is more important than the general.

To you. Remember, the sacrifices you're willing to make are those dramatically impacting other people.

To everyone who should give a shit, since the Chosen One fucking lost.

Seanchaidh:
I wonder how this would be going down in a Clinton administration: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20492:Democrats-Push-to-Help-Predatory-Payday-Lenders

Oh, inject that sweet, sweet bipartisanship right into my veins.

I don't know. I imagine some Democrats would very vocally oppose it, and some would support it, and whether Clinton did would come down to what was politically advantageous for her.

Clinton very vocally opposed any attempts at defunding or bridling the CFPB prior to her defeat in 2016. She would likely try to shield the agency if she was President, if only because it was established by a well-liked prior Democrat administration of which she was a part. But, again, I can imagine a scenario where she'd take the opposite stance. She was a pragmatist. I would expect her to work rationally in her own self-interest, and while that would sometimes involve selling out to Wall Street or the military-industrial complex, it would also necessarily involve a certain amount of policy action intended to protect Democratic voter demographics such as the poor, because doing so would be in her own self-interest.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is just...insane. He can't even be expected to act in his own rational self-interest; he's an unstable bundle of scandals, racial grievances, and petty corruption pretending to be a president.

Seanchaidh:
Not as eager-- or at least not as openly. But you've got to understand, we normally don't pay this much attention to our cabinets in the United States. This is very peculiar in recent history.

That reminds me of a late-show joke from...I can't remember where I heard it. But it went something like this: when you go to see the doctor, and the doctor tells you that the reason you fainted yesterday was because your inferior vena cava is being compressed by a swollen aorta, you very suddenly and very quickly learn what an inferior vena cava is and why it's important. It's always been there, you've always had it, but you only noticed what it was and learned its name once it stopped doing its job properly.

In the same way, people only care about what the White House budget director just did or said because the White House budget director is very clearly not working. And like the inferior vena cava, everyone suddenly knows what it is and what it's supposed to do, because it isn't doing it very well and that's noticeable.

Okay, I retold the joke in a very unfunny way. But the gist of it is: you only start to perceive all the working parts of a bureaucracy once those parts start to fail. The Trump administration is easily the most dysfunctional in recent US history. And all those dysfunctions are getting a lot of attention, because like you said, it's really unusual for a presidency to be this terrible.

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

2016 demonstrated that the primary is more important than the general.

To you. Remember, the sacrifices you're willing to make are those dramatically impacting other people.

To everyone who should give a shit, since the Chosen One fucking lost.

Still down to a bunch of guys who made a decision against what the vote tally said. That's not losing. That's abuse of power and a lack of common sense. You keep touting this, but all it does is show that she should have been in, thus denying whatever point you were trying to make. Once again, after all the fence-sitters, the people taken in by bullshit, the lack of awareness for the danger, the spite-voters, and all - still more votes. Not the fault of people voting democrat. They outnumbered everyone else. All down to some asshole dicking around, and that's all. Now, move on.

Seanchaidh:

To everyone who should give a shit, since the Chosen One fucking lost.

One would think that after the fact, one's priorities would focus on events that can still be affected and changed. The Presidency is affecting people now, dramatically and severely.

The "counterfactual Clinton presidency" is sitting in hypothetical-world; one wonders why ongoing criticism of this nonexistent presidency is so overridingly important that it must derail any ongoing criticism of the real presidency.

At present, the endless and uneven-handed focus on the failed candidate serves as a handy deflection for President.

Eventually, one starts to think that deflection is the intention-- even one like myself, who hates Clinton and vocally criticised her during the Primaries as well.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

To everyone who should give a shit, since the Chosen One fucking lost.

One would think that after the fact, one's priorities would focus on events that can still be affected and changed. The Presidency is affecting people now, dramatically and severely.

The "counterfactual Clinton presidency" is sitting in hypothetical-world; one wonders why ongoing criticism of this nonexistent presidency is so overridingly important that it must derail any ongoing criticism of the real presidency.

At present, the endless and uneven-handed focus on the failed candidate serves as a handy deflection for President.

Eventually, one starts to think that deflection is the intention-- even one like myself, who hates Clinton and vocally criticised her during the Primaries as well.

Look. At. The. Thread. Title.

FalloutJack:
Still down to a bunch of guys who made a decision against what the vote tally said. That's not losing.

Serious question here, do you seriously believe that Clinton and her team were unaware of the way the Electoral College worked and didn't campaign accordingly? Because that's honestly a laughable position to take.

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

To everyone who should give a shit, since the Chosen One fucking lost.

One would think that after the fact, one's priorities would focus on events that can still be affected and changed. The Presidency is affecting people now, dramatically and severely.

The "counterfactual Clinton presidency" is sitting in hypothetical-world; one wonders why ongoing criticism of this nonexistent presidency is so overridingly important that it must derail any ongoing criticism of the real presidency.

At present, the endless and uneven-handed focus on the failed candidate serves as a handy deflection for President.

Eventually, one starts to think that deflection is the intention-- even one like myself, who hates Clinton and vocally criticised her during the Primaries as well.

Look. At. The. Thread. Title.

You might be vindicated in this particular instance, but Silvanus's point is entirely correct. All one has to do is take a casual browse of this forum to see you deflecting whatever the topic at hand is onto an imaginary Hillary presidency regardless of how relevant it is to that thread. You're as bad as any alt-right idiot who excuses any/all of Trump's numerous blunders and failings with "what about Hillary" except you take it even further.

For someone who hates Hillary so much, you seem to spend an awful lot of time fantasizing about her...

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

One would think that after the fact, one's priorities would focus on events that can still be affected and changed. The Presidency is affecting people now, dramatically and severely.

The "counterfactual Clinton presidency" is sitting in hypothetical-world; one wonders why ongoing criticism of this nonexistent presidency is so overridingly important that it must derail any ongoing criticism of the real presidency.

At present, the endless and uneven-handed focus on the failed candidate serves as a handy deflection for President.

Eventually, one starts to think that deflection is the intention-- even one like myself, who hates Clinton and vocally criticised her during the Primaries as well.

Look. At. The. Thread. Title.

You might be vindicated in this particular instance, but Silvanus's point is entirely correct. All one has to do is take a casual browse of this forum to see you deflecting whatever the topic at hand is onto an imaginary Hillary presidency regardless of how relevant it is to that thread. You're as bad as any alt-right idiot who excuses any/all of Trump's numerous blunders and failings with "what about Hillary" except you take it even further.

For someone who hates Hillary so much, you seem to spend an awful lot of time fantasizing about her...

I object when people hyperventilate about Trump doing things that are supposedly unprecedented or abnormal when I know better because getting rid of Trump solves far too few of the problems facing our country and people need to be aware of that.

Seanchaidh:

Look. At. The. Thread. Title.

I'm not talking about this thread alone. This is a consistent and repetitive trend, including threads that have little or nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with the actual, real presidency.

The fact is, you know this, too: you're aware enough of your own posting habits, and you know I know it as well. This shoddy, lazy little defence exists not for me-- it's here because it's easy.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

Look. At. The. Thread. Title.

I'm not talking about this thread alone. This is a consistent and repetitive trend, including threads that have little or nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with the actual, real presidency.

The fact is, you know this, too: you're aware enough of your own posting habits, and you know I know it as well. This shoddy, lazy little defence exists not for me-- it's here because it's easy.

How many of these instances were in response to someone bringing up the election? Have you actually thought critically about this obsession over my posting habits?

Seanchaidh:

How many of these instances were in response to someone bringing up the election? Have you actually thought critically about this obsession over my posting habits?

Yes, I have. A great number of them refer to specific actions of the actual President.

...which, of course, find a handy defence in those willing to insist that the failing candidate would be that much worse, so let's not think too hard about what's actually happening, please.

Again: you know well enough that I have thought critically of Clinton, and spoke strongly against her during the Primaries. This is another in a line of endless deflection techniques: Somebody criticises X; go back to past elections, and hammer on endlessly on those points, until the current lines of criticism melt away.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

How many of these instances were in response to someone bringing up the election? Have you actually thought critically about this obsession over my posting habits?

Yes, I have. A great number of them refer to specific actions of the actual President.

Produce them, then. They shouldn't be hard to find.

Here's the last page of that (currently):

5 posts are this tread, a few of which are about me and not Hillary Clinton (Oh, hi!)
An unrelated post about black on black violence (responding to Zontar's assumption that problems that can be solved easily are necessarily already solved).
An unrelated post about Net Neutrality (and its affect on porn).
Five unrelated posts in "It's okay to white..." (all addressed to Gorfias).
Two unrelated posts concerning the enforcement of trickle down (concerning the New Deal and destroying modern finance as a solution to problems caused by modern finance).

Must be on page two.

Five more in this thread (these probably actually do mention Hillary Clinton, amazingly.)
Five more in "It's okay to white" concerning legacies of racism. (Somehow without mentioning that Hillary Clinton owned slaves.)
A post in favor of redistributing wealth and a post about the New Deal (trickle down thread).
Two posts concerning Google's possible dealmaking without net neutrality.

Uh... page three?

Two unrelated net neutrality posts.
Two unrelated concerning major reforms of capitalism.
Five posts concerning a wikileaked email in a thread about wikileaks supposedly being "in the tank for Trump" for (shock and horror) offering self-interested reasons to Don Jr. to get him to leak stuff to them. The email concerns an admission that elites have been perfectly content to foster ignorance and apathy in the population of the United States. One or two of these posts respond to someone else bringing up Hillary Clinton specifically. Of course, that thread is about the events of the election. So... there's that.
Four in this thread.
Two in a thread about Hillary buying the DNC.

You've got like half an example there in my last three pages of posting history. Where are all of these tangential Hillary Clinton posts? I guess they're all on page four?

image

Have any other unwelcome, obnoxious, and frankly inaccurate criticisms of my posting habits?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here