- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fun Reading: Hit pieces on HRC campaign from NY Mag and Rolling Stone
Posted on 4/21/17 at 10:44 am to olddawg26
Posted on 4/21/17 at 10:44 am to olddawg26
Amazing how there are morons who cannot fathom that a given outlet can publish both crap and truthful stories.
These people wrote a book. Is this in the book? Yes? Then this is a truthful story.
If they publish a story tomorrow with anonymous sources with anonymous axes to grind that may be different.
Read my post slowly. You can get it! I know you can!!!
These people wrote a book. Is this in the book? Yes? Then this is a truthful story.
If they publish a story tomorrow with anonymous sources with anonymous axes to grind that may be different.
Read my post slowly. You can get it! I know you can!!!
0
Posted on 4/21/17 at 10:54 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
Shattered is sourced almost entirely to figures inside the Clinton campaign who were and are deeply loyal to Clinton. Yet those sources tell of a campaign that spent nearly two years paralyzed by simple existential questions: Why are we running? What do we stand for? If you're wondering what might be the point of rehashing this now, the responsibility for opposing Donald Trump going forward still rests with the (mostly anonymous) voices described in this book. What Allen and Parnes captured in Shattered was a far more revealing portrait of the Democratic Party intelligentsia than, say, the WikiLeaks dumps. And while the book is profoundly unflattering to Hillary Clinton, the problem it describes really has nothing to do with Secretary Clinton. The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway. In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.
That is 100% true and the dems as well as the libs here have not learned that lesson. That is why their "moral victory" in the Ks special election was a real world loss, and that is why the dems will lose in the Ga 6th special election & the '18 midterms.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 11:01 am to Ag Zwin
quote:Chelsea doesn't appear to have any strong convictions behind any issues. Hopefully she decides on a different career.
I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl. I’d hoped we’d finally seen the last of that name in public life — it’s been a long quarter of a century — and that we could all move on. Alas, no. Her daughter (angels and ministers of grace defend us) seems to be positioning herself for a political career. And Clinton herself duly emerged last week for a fawning, rapturous reception at the Women in the World conference in New York City. It simply amazes me the hold this family still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:26 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Chelsea doesn't appear to have any strong convictions behind any issues. Hopefully she decides on a different career.
Uh oh. A true believer now questioning Kim Jong Clinton. Dead man posting.
Enjoy an upvote while you cock the gun for your double-tap suicide.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:33 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:You think Matt Taibbi is a Clinton mouthpiece?
When the mouthpieces do, though, it's gratifying to read both the article and rending of garments in the comments sections.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:36 pm to Ag Zwin
If Hillary were a Republican, there would be an HBO movie about the Clinton Campaign similar to Sarah Palin & Game Change.
Hillary ran an awful campaign and it's because she was an awful candidate who's only selling points were that it was her turn and that she was a woman. Nobody liked her and everything about her was forced and phony. Even her outfits are focus group tested. Trump gave a reason for people to vote for him. People turned out to see him. Meanwhile Hillary had to get Beyoncé and other celebrities in order to fill arenas.
You could tell early on in 2015 that she wasn't going to be a juggernaut. I'd even say she was the worst Democratic nominee since Mondale. That's why I believe that several Republicans could've beaten her (That isn't meant to be a slight at Trump). She was really fricking bad.
Hillary ran an awful campaign and it's because she was an awful candidate who's only selling points were that it was her turn and that she was a woman. Nobody liked her and everything about her was forced and phony. Even her outfits are focus group tested. Trump gave a reason for people to vote for him. People turned out to see him. Meanwhile Hillary had to get Beyoncé and other celebrities in order to fill arenas.
You could tell early on in 2015 that she wasn't going to be a juggernaut. I'd even say she was the worst Democratic nominee since Mondale. That's why I believe that several Republicans could've beaten her (That isn't meant to be a slight at Trump). She was really fricking bad.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:42 pm to SirWinston
quote:
“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision.
It's worth repeating.
But lucky enough, democrats are going all in on muh russia and identity politics as to why she lost. Hope they keep it up.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:45 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
That's why I believe that several Republicans could've beaten her (That isn't meant to be a slight at Trump). She was really fricking bad.
I agree, but it still would have required not running a defensive campaign. That seems to be a difficult thing for a lot of republicans. Hopefully, someone learned from Trump, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:52 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Yet, today, Asian-Americans are among the most prosperous, well-educated, and successful ethnic groups in America. What gives? It couldn’t possibly be that they maintained solid two-parent family structures, had social networks that looked after one another, placed enormous emphasis on education and hard work, and thereby turned false, negative stereotypes into true, positive ones, could it? It couldn’t be that all whites are not racists or that the American dream still lives?
My wife, in her masters program, stumbled upon an 'article' which lays out what is going to be a common argument in the years to come. Asian Americans and latinos are "Voluntary" minorities, and as such, don't have the internalized prejudices given by the white man which hold them down. Amerindians and Blacks are "Involuntary minorities" and are thus always held down by the white man.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:52 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I agree, but it still would have required not running a defensive campaign. That seems to be a difficult thing for a lot of republicans. Hopefully, someone learned from Trump, but I won't hold my breath.
The media was the most intense and violent against the republican nominee and it was the most blatant display of that I've ever seen in my lifetime. They weren't even hiding it. It was disgusting.
Trump certainly was on the offensive 99% of the time and never slowed down. The only thing that seemed to faze him was the access hollywood tapes and while he did back down and apologize for that, he still turned around and went back on offense and used Bill's rape victims against him and Hillary at the second debate.
Also, did you notice how Trump never referred to democrats as liberals and progressives in the blue wall states and rust belt? That didn't just happen by itself, that was intentional.
Scorched earth, high energy and speaking to the people works.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 12:54 pm to SirWinston
quote:
“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision.
Let's look at this way: Hillary had a good convention, three good debates, a friendly media, and had a sizable advantage in resources. Her opponent had a fractured party behind him and was on the wrong end of arguably the biggest October Surprise in election history. Yet she still couldn't win.
That's like a football team that dominated the offensive & defensive stats, won the turnover margin, and had home field advantage....yet still lost the game.
I said this after the election but if the Left really wants to be angry at someone, they should forget about Trump and focus their fire on Hillary. She's the one who cleared the Democratic field (which hurt their "bench" for future elections), demanded a coronation, and lost a very winnable election.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:06 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I agree, but it still would have required not running a defensive campaign. That seems to be a difficult thing for a lot of republicans. Hopefully, someone learned from Trump, but I won't hold my breath.
It's hard to say for sure and I'm not saying it was a slam dunk that Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/etc. would've beaten her. It's just my personal opinion that Trump won while missing a lot of scoring opportunities that others could've capitalized on. IMO, he was probably going to lose until the Obamacare news came out in late Oct and the 2nd Comey letter broke. That 1-2 punch got a lot people on the right behind him who might've been NeverTrump beforehand.
IMO, several Republicans would've gone on the offensive against Hillary and probably could've effectively prosecuted her on the campaign trail and in the debates for the FBI stuff.
Again, I think Hillary was just an awful candidate who was nowhere near as strong as Obama was in 2008 & 2012. Republicans had to have pitched perfect games on those two campaigns in order to win. Since I believe that she's such an awful candidate with such a flawed campaign strategy, I don't believe that Trump is the only man alive who could've stopped her. That's meant to be an indictment on her, not Trump.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:10 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
It's hard to say for sure and I'm not saying it was a slam dunk that Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/etc.
quote:
IMO, several Republicans would've gone on the offensive against Hillary and probably could've effectively prosecuted her on the campaign trail and in the debates for the FBI stuff.
I'm not saying it's a given that none of those would have done that. I just don't think you can assume it's a given that all or any of them would have.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:12 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
three good debates
Hillary crushed the 1st debate.
Trump won the second debate by a touchdown.
The 3rd debate was pretty much a tie.
quote:
That's like a football team that dominated the offensive & defensive stats, won the turnover margin, and had home field advantage....yet still lost the game.
Probably because Trump had better field position with hidden yardage in great punt and kickoff returns all game long.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:15 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I'm not saying it's a given that none of those would have done that. I just don't think you can assume it's a given that all or any of them would have.
For sure. Rubio could've frozen up again in a debate. Kasich could've been a giant pussy. Cruz could've creeped everyone out. My point is that Hillary ended up being so fricking bad that I don't buy that it's a certainty that Trump was the only one who could stop her.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:16 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
I'm not saying it was a slam dunk that Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/etc. would've beaten her.
Could you see them winning states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and the Iowa and Ohio by the comfortable margins they went for Trump?
I can't. Trump was a very unique fit for those states especially since he never referred to Hillary and the democrats as liberals and progressives.
quote:
It's just my personal opinion that Trump won while missing a lot of scoring opportunities that others could've capitalized on
Trump had opportunities in Minnesota and New Hampshire and those states could've been won had there been a few more rallies there.
Nevada, Colorado and Virginia was in the mix as well.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 1:23 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel – a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale.
Not very objective there, Rolling Stone.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:03 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Could you see them winning states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and the Iowa and Ohio by the comfortable margins they went for Trump?
It would've been a totally different campaign so it's tough to say. Keep in mind that Trump didn't really improve on Romney's numbers in Wisconsin or Virginia. For as many people as Trump energized, he also fired up people on the other side of the aisle, so it's not a certainty that Hillary would've had her totals if she wasn't going up against Trump. There are a lot of factors at play here which is why I said it isn't a slam dunk.
Again, my point is simply that Hillary was a very vulnerable candidate.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:10 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Because it's her turn
That's a bad pretext for anyone to run on. The last person to do that was George H. W. Bush who was able to pull it off because he rode Reagan's coattails. By 1992 he was done because he could not articulate a vision or theme for his candidacy . Bill Clinton beat him, not because Bill was a great inspirational figure, but because Bill was a competent politician. If he would have run against an enthusiastic Republican candidate in 1992 he would have lost....same in 1996 against Dole ( who might have been the worst Presidential candidate in history) He (Dole) also ran because....it was his turn.
Hillary ran both times and the pretext was always ....it was her turn. She telegraphed it in 2008 and Obama came in and stole the nomination from her. She basically said as much in 2016 and Bernie took her to the end of the primary season and then Trump in the general outflanked her. There was no theme for her. Trump had a theme, Bernie had a theme. Hillary thought it was her due.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:42 pm to Iosh
quote:
You think Matt Taibbi is a Clinton mouthpiece?
I think Rolling Stone is overwhelmingly liberal/Democratic, though I have seen some even handed stuff there.
I think it's ridiculous that some publications do allow the token opposing viewpoint from time to time, then try to claim impartiality and objectivity. One or two Op-Ed's a week does not balance against a clearly liberal editorial stance and news articles that drip with partisan interpretation.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News