Hilary Clinton is still a bitter old woman

Author: HistoryBuff

Posts

Total: 51
Topic's author
#1
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
News about a hilary clinton interview came out. In the interview Hilary shows off what a bitter, entitled person she really is. She claim that "no one likes" bernie sanders when he is the most popular senator in the country. 

She refused to confirm whether she would endorse Sanders if he became the nominee. 

She is obviously still REALLY bitter about losing to trump and wants to find a way to make it bernie's fault. it doesn't matter that he did like 40 campaign events for her after she became the nominee. it doesn't matter that bernie fought harder for her than she did for Obama when he was the nominee. She can't deal with the fact that she was a shitty candidate that people didn't want and she needs someone to blame.

The fact that she would consider refusing to help bernie if he is the nominee when he fought for her is a really ugly look for her. 
Topic's author
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
outsider candidates get asked all the time if they will endorse the eventual nominee. If any one of them ever dared to say they might not, CNN, MSNBC etc would all lose their shit accusing them of supporting trump. But if some corportist shill like clinton does it, they don't care. 

#3
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Why do we care?
Topic's author
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Why do we care?
Fair point. I don't really care what she has to say. But alot of people still value her opinion (for some reason). I think every time she speaks about bernie or the primary she shows us more and more how out of touch she is with the country and what an entitled, bitter woman she is. 


#5
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you're taking this woman who you think is out of touch and entitled and... amplifying her voice?
Topic's author
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
So you're taking this woman who you think is out of touch and entitled and... amplifying her voice?
Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice. It is providing evidence as to why the establish of the democratic party have utterly failed and need to be replaced. 
#7
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice.
Yes it is.

It is providing evidence as to why the establish of the democratic party have utterly failed and need to be replaced. 
Except she's not relevant to the Democratic party anymore.

Topic's author
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice.
Yes it is.


No it's not. She already has every media outlet pumping out her messaging. Calling out the ridiculousness of her message does not amplify it further. 

Except she's not relevant to the Democratic party anymore.
Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party. She isn't running, but most of the major candidates running have had meetings with her. Most of the major campaigns are filled with staffers that are friends and allies of Clinton. The DNC is filled with her cronies. She is still extremely relevant until she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone. 
#9
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
No it's not. She already has every media outlet pumping out her messaging. Calling out the ridiculousness of her message does not amplify it further. 
Anything you do that calls attention to the message and makes more people aware of it amplifies it.

Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party.
I don't think so. She's basically a punchline.

She isn't running, but most of the major candidates running have had meetings with her.
And?

Most of the major campaigns are filled with staffers that are friends and allies of Clinton.
Exactly. She is a ship that sunk. She herself is a lost cause that has no relevance any more. But that doesn't mean she didn't hire competenat staff or have powerful allies. That's exactly why you would have a meeting with her, to poach her resources and use them to your own ends. Doesn't make her the "center of the democractic party." She's a corpse and the vultures are feasting on her remains.

The DNC is filled with her cronies. She is still extremely relevant until she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone. 
It's DC politics. Everyone has connections with everyone going back to the dawn of the country. There is no point in time when "she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone." It's a self-perpetuating machine.
Topic's author
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Anything you do that calls attention to the message and makes more people aware of it amplifies it.
It is playing on every network, mostly without the criticism it deserves. I cannot possibly amplify that. I can draw attention to how terrible it is. 

Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party.
I don't think so. She's basically a punchline.
To you, sure. To the DNC, to the staffers in the Warren campaign (among others), to the millions of "woke" people who just want a woman president and don't care what policy's they support, to the countless bundlers and political donors, no you couldn't be more wrong. Hilary clinton still has a long reach in the democratic party. 

And?
Have you gotten meetings with all the major candidates? The reason they want to have meetings with her is because she is still a powerful figure in the democratic establishment. 

Exactly. She is a ship that sunk. She herself is a lost cause that has no relevance any more. But that doesn't mean she didn't hire competenat staff or have powerful allies. That's exactly why you would have a meeting with her, to poach her resources and use them to your own ends. Doesn't make her the "center of the democractic party." She's a corpse and the vultures are feasting on her remains.
Those people who were her allies, are still her allies. She has all the most powerful people on speed dial and if she calls them, they will damn sure answer. You might not have any respect for her (and I would agree), but the rich and powerful in washington still very much care what she has to say. 


#11
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not a Bernie fan, but I agree with you here. This was a low move from Hillary. Ever since she lost the election, she's spent her time blaming everyone other than herself. But not only is she a sore loser regarding the election, she has also proved that she's a sore winner regarding the primary.
Topic's author
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
But not only is she a sore loser regarding the election, she has also proved that she's a sore winner regarding the primary.
The worst part, to me anyway, is that bernie did endorse her. He did about 40 rallies for her during the election. And she still hates his guts for daring to run against her.

In her mind she was the anointed one and anyone who dared to challenge her is a terrible person. 


#13
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Couldn't it just be that she hates his ideas and doesn't like what he is doing to the("her") party?
#14
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
The salt because she's right. Only millennial's who try to be hip enjoy Bernie, and they ruin your party with their socialist ideas



#15
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
A country is supposed to be lassiez fair when a country booms and socialist in a bust. Maybe Bernie is good for the Great Depression, not for the Roaring 20s
#16
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I also am not some socialist hating conservative. My favorite president is FDR, a socialist himself. Socialism was needed to change due to Hoover's horrible govt and his terrible regulation, by killing children and veterans of WWI for wanting pay. His socialism benefited society, Bernie's hurts it. FDR kept businesses up to make money, but put money into the govt to pay off while still caring for the people. His command of WWII was great 
Topic's author
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Couldn't it just be that she hates his ideas and doesn't like what he is doing to the("her") party?
If her criticisms had been about his policies, then sure. They were not. They were personal. IE "nobody like him". 

Topic's author
#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
A country is supposed to be lassiez fair when a country booms and socialist in a bust. Maybe Bernie is good for the Great Depression, not for the Roaring 20s
This kind of thinking is kind of the problem. The laissez faire environment is what sets up the conditions for the bust that follows. Socialist policies then have to clean up the mess. When things go back to laissez faire you get a spike of the rich making lots of money, then another bust. If you kept good policies in control the whole time you could avoid more of this spike and crash cycle. 

His socialism benefited society, Bernie's hurts it. 
Why? If you accept that socialism was good when FDR did it, why is it bad now? How is it fundamentally different?
#19
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Vader
I know Hoover was a “Republican” but he was by no means laissez-fairre. When FDR ran against him, he called HIM a socialist because of all of his spending. FDR ran on a more conservative platform, but never followed through 
#20
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Funny, people who voted for Hillery are calling her a bad choice now.
#21
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
It's actually rather tragic when your election system forces you to vote for a bad candidate, just because the other candidate is that much worse
Topic's author
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Funny, people who voted for Hillery are calling her a bad choice now.
Hilary was a bad choice. Trump might be the worst choice ever. The lessor of 2 evils is the preferable choice. 


#23
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Without laissez fairre economics, we probably wouldn’t be very industrialized. Certainly not a superpower. You can criticize the Industrial Revolution working conditions and such, but that period of little government regulation saw some of the greatest improvement in GDP, GDP per capita, innovation, and there was good wage growth

On the other hand, socialist countries during their industrial eras, such as Russia, didn’t end up so well. 
Topic's author
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Without laissez fairre economics, we probably wouldn’t be very industrialized. Certainly not a superpower.
Why would you think that?

You can criticize the Industrial Revolution working conditions and such, but that period of little government regulation saw some of the greatest improvement in GDP, GDP per capita, innovation, and there was good wage growth
It also saw almost unparalleled suffering for workers. The rich got massively richer while the poor struggled to survive. 

On the other hand, socialist countries during their industrial eras, such as Russia, didn’t end up so well. 
The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. There were no socialist countries. Russia only became communist 80-100 after the end of the industrial revolution. So no, a capitalistic, cutthroat american system out performed an incompetent monarchical system. In some senses it was just 2 different version of oligarchy competing. 

And even then, no one is advocating for Socialism in america. They are advocating for reasonable regulation and limits on the abuse and greed of capitalism. That isn't socialism. 
#25
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. There were no socialist countries. Russia only became communist 80-100 after the end of the industrial revolution. So no, a capitalistic, cutthroat american system out performed an incompetent monarchical system. In some senses it was just 2 different version of oligarchy competing. 

I'm not talking about the specific Industrial Revolution. I am saying that when Russia was becoming an industrialized country. That happened under Stalin. Industrialization didn't have to happen during the 18th and 19th centuries, there are plenty of agrarian countries still in existence.

It also saw almost unparalleled suffering for workers. The rich got massively richer while the poor struggled to survive. 

And the unions (not the toxic ones like UAW of today) came in and negotiated better wages and working conditions. Individuals, not the government, worked it out. That is precisely how it should work. Different companies operate in different ways and broad governmental regulations that are supposed to apply to entire industries are bound to cause inefficiencies.

Why would you think that?
Well, for one, I can't think of one country with socialism has ever had a good outcome, not even during their industrialization.

Laissez Fairre capitalism started being practiced in the mid-18th century, right when you said the Industrial Revolution started. Honestly, it arguably caused the Industrial Revolution. Are you going to say that incentives for individual prosperity and limited governmental barriers to entry didn't create this era of prosperity?

Perhaps we should tax the crap out of anyone successful and regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms? And you wonder why more small business owners vote Republican than Democrat.......

And even then, no one is advocating for Socialism in america. They are advocating for reasonable regulation and limits on the abuse and greed of capitalism. That isn't socialism. 
It could have been someone else, but aren't you the guy that said taxation is "socialism"? But somehow giving government all control over the medical insurance sector is somehow not socialism?

Not sure I have heard many "reasonable regulations" either. 

Topic's author
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not talking about the specific Industrial Revolution. I am saying that when Russia was becoming an industrialized country. That happened under Stalin. Industrialization didn't have to happen during the 18th and 19th centuries, there are plenty of agrarian countries still in existence.
The industrian revolution, by definition, is when industrialization began and when a large amount of it happened. Russia went from a 2nd rate power to a super power in a couple decades. It took america much longer than that. 

And the unions (not the toxic ones like UAW of today) came in and negotiated better wages and working conditions. Individuals, not the government, worked it out. 
lol no. Workers were literally burning to death because employers were locking them in until the government forced them to stop. Unions are good for fighting for wages and things like that. But when it comes to safety standards, pollution, etc. a union will never be able to do anywhere near as much good as a government. 

That is precisely how it should work. Different companies operate in different ways and broad governmental regulations that are supposed to apply to entire industries are bound to cause inefficiencies.
You're right. It was more efficient to lock employees in the building so they couldn't take breaks or steal things. It also lead to lots of dead people. Efficiency is important, but worker safety and rights are far more important. 

Well, for one, I can't think of one country with socialism has ever had a good outcome, not even during their industrialization.
The soviet union increased their total industrial output by 118% during the 1st five year plan. They industrialized much faster than america did. 

Laissez Fairre capitalism started being practiced in the mid-18th century, right when you said the Industrial Revolution started. Honestly, it arguably caused the Industrial Revolution. Are you going to say that incentives for individual prosperity and limited governmental barriers to entry didn't create this era of prosperity?
Laissez Fairre is basically just letting the rich do whatever they want to whoever they want. That can cause them to make lots of money, that is true. It can also cause them to enslave people, burn their workers alive etc. Removing all restrictions on greed and avarice is an extremely dangerous thing. Putting reasonable limits and rules in place gives you all the advantages of capitalism without the massive levels of abuse Laissez Faire capitalism causes. 

Perhaps we should tax the crap out of anyone successful and regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms? And you wonder why more small business owners vote Republican than Democrat.......
This would be reductio ad absurdum. I have never said to "tax the crap out of anyone successful" or to "regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms". You are making up things and pretending I am saying them. It is a sign that your argument is weak. 

It could have been someone else, but aren't you the guy that said taxation is "socialism"? 
I don't believe so. 

But somehow giving government all control over the medical insurance sector is somehow not socialism?
correct. That would not qualify as socialism. 

Not sure I have heard many "reasonable regulations" either. 
things like requiring companies to have fire escapes. That sort of regulation saves lives. If it wasn't in place, alot of companies wouldn't bother and people would needlessly burn to death. It used to happen much more commonly. 
#27
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
The industrian revolution, by definition, is when industrialization began and when a large amount of it happened. Russia went from a 2nd rate power to a super power in a couple decades. It took america much longer than that. 


How do you figure it took us longer?

lol no. Workers were literally burning to death because employers were locking them in until the government forced them to stop. Unions are good for fighting for wages and things like that. But when it comes to safety standards, pollution, etc. a union will never be able to do anywhere near as much good as a government. 

I wouldn't trust a union to solve pollution because that indirectly affects their workers. Why couldn't they solve workplace safety issues?

You're right. It was more efficient to lock employees in the building so they couldn't take breaks or steal things. It also lead to lots of dead people. Efficiency is important, but worker safety and rights are far more important. 

Not sure having employees burn to death was efficient. Don't you know how expensive it is to train new workers?

The soviet union increased their total industrial output by 118% during the 1st five year plan. They industrialized much faster than america did. 

That is very disingenuous. China has had huge growth rates over the past thirty years.... because they had much room to grow. They also have modern industrial equipment created by other countries and didn't have to invent it themselves. Same with Russia- they had little production beforehand, so of course their growth rate will be high. I can't find where you got your data, but I'm guessing you didn't provide data for the following five year plans because that growth was unsustainable, yes?

Just a side note, how many people died to make that happen? Probably a hell of a lot more than died in America.

Laissez Fairre is basically just letting the rich do whatever they want to whoever they want. That can cause them to make lots of money, that is true. It can also cause them to enslave people, burn their workers alive etc. Removing all restrictions on greed and avarice is an extremely dangerous thing. Putting reasonable limits and rules in place gives you all the advantages of capitalism without the massive levels of abuse Laissez Faire capitalism causes. 

Not defending anarcho-capitalism. Laissez Fairre is more meant as a relative term in this context. Obviously the government did some things during that time, but it is labelled "Laissez Fairre" because they kept interference to a minimum. That isn't a bad thing.

This would be reductio ad absurdum. I have never said to "tax the crap out of anyone successful" or to "regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms". You are making up things and pretending I am saying them. It is a sign that your argument is weak. 

I didn't put quotes around it when I said those things, so I wasn't quoting you on that. Nor is "taxing the crap" out of someone a defined term. You are 100% in favor of raising taxes on the upper brackets and even are in favor of a wealth tax. I would consider that "taxing the crap" out of them. You are also in favor of more regulation, even though compliance costs for companies are already in the billions. 


#28
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Actually, make that nearly $2 trillion for regulating
Topic's author
#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
How do you figure it took us longer?
because Russia industrialized incredibly fast. 

I wouldn't trust a union to solve pollution because that indirectly affects their workers. Why couldn't they solve workplace safety issues?
If they had enough power, maybe they could. However you yourself have argued that they are already too powerful and need to be weakened. 

Additionally, safety would be extremely uneven. Some companies with strong unions would have good safety standards. Other companies with weaker or more corrupt unions would have shitty safety standards. People would still die. 

Not sure having employees burn to death was efficient. Don't you know how expensive it is to train new workers?
Depends on the industry. If it is a computer programmer, expensive. If it is a factory worker, it is dirt cheap. That is why factories treated their workers as expendable until the government passed labor laws. 

I can't find where you got your data, but I'm guessing you didn't provide data for the following five year plans because that growth was unsustainable, yes?
True, it was explosive growth that couldn't be sustained. But so is lassez faire capitalism. The massive problems it causes leads to death, recessions and worker unrest. 

Just a side note, how many people died to make that happen? Probably a hell of a lot more than died in America.
I'm not sure. A hell of alot of people died in america because of capitalism. 

Not defending anarcho-capitalism. Laissez Fairre is more meant as a relative term in this context. Obviously the government did some things during that time, but it is labelled "Laissez Fairre" because they kept interference to a minimum. That isn't a bad thing.
That very much depends on what that minimum is. In practice what that meant is that if a few dozen poor people burn to death the government just looked the other way. 

I didn't put quotes around it when I said those things, so I wasn't quoting you on that. Nor is "taxing the crap" out of someone a defined term.
You are pretending I have made those arguments when I have not. 

You are 100% in favor of raising taxes on the upper brackets and even are in favor of a wealth tax.
correct, I am in favor of going back to the sort of taxation levels that made america great. It is only in the last few decades that tax levels on the rich have dropped through the floor. 

You are also in favor of more regulation, even though compliance costs for companies are already in the billions. 
and that compliance saves potentially millions of lives. Are there costs to running a safe business, of course. They could save lots of money if they didn't bother with safety standards or they could just dump their toxic waste in the river. But that isn't good for society. It isn't good for america. Billionaires and multi national corporations would save lots of money if those regulations were removed. The US government and the people of america would pay much, much more. 
#30
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
Russia wasn't socialist during the industrial revolution. 

While America did industrialize under laissez-faire economics, other nations in Europe managed to industrialize just fine under a mixed market. The Tsarist autocracy (and later Soviet policies) was actually what helped Russia industrialize. They'd continue to be backwards under a laissez-faire economy.