What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Hillary Clinton thread. 'Done' but not going away. (1 Viewer)

Gr00vus said:
I'm just tired of HRC. It's enough already. She could at least take enough time off to make people wonder what she's up to, and no it hasn't been long enough. Seems like it took a lot longer for Gore and Kerry to surface again politically (Gore was great in Futurama though).
I agree in part but she won the popular vote and lost the election in one of the most controversial elections in our country's history. Her opinions on what went down are legitimate for her to express. Can you imagine the non-stop #### storm Trump would've caused if he had lost? Hilary has been pretty damn docile in comparison. I think for the good of the Democratic party she needs to pull back on having a prominent role (which by all accounts appears to be happening) but I think her relaying her thoughts and opinions on what happened in the last election are worthy of discussion. I think she's earned that right. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree in part but she won the popular vote and lost the election in one of the most controversial elections in our country's history. Her opinions on what went down are legitimate for her to express. Can you imagine the non-stop #### storm Trump would've caused if he had lost? Hilary has been pretty damn docile in comparison. I think for the good of the Democratic party she needs to pull back on having a prominent role (which by all accounts appears to be happening) but I think her relaying her thoughts and opinions on what happened in the last election are worthy of discussion. I think she's earned that right. 
Political families exhaust me.  The Clinton's the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts to a lesser degree.  They always come with an element of rearguing the past and folks seeking to vindicate the past.  As for self-serving first hand accounts of history, I suppose they have their place.  No one is forcing me or anyone else who is tired of Hilary from following her at this juncture.

 
I agree in part but she won the popular vote and lost the election in one of the most controversial elections in our country's history. Her opinions on what went down are legitimate for her to express. Can you imagine the non-stop #### storm Trump would've caused if he had lost? Hilary has been pretty damn docile in comparison. I think for the good of the Democratic party she needs to pull back on having a prominent role (which by all accounts appears to be happening) but I think her relaying her thoughts and opinions on what happened in the last election are worthy of discussion. I think she's earned that right. 
The thing that gets me about one of the main threads of her current whine fest is her incessant complaining that Bernie promised the moon whether he could deliver it or not, gave her more of a run for her money than she expected as a result, pulled in lots of people who were disengaged from politics. And instead of learning from that and using the experience to her advantage in the general, she made the same mistakes all over again that made the primaries closer than they probably should have been, getting beat by another guy promising the moon whether he could (or even intended to) deliver it or not. Just a horrible, horrible campaign she ran, so out of touch with what needed to be done to win the election. She's got absolutely no one to blame but herself, her campaign staff, and the DNC. Go cry somewhere else HRC, you botched your shot so badly we ended up with Donald J ####### Trump as President of the U.S.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that gets me about one of the main threads of her current whine fest is her incessant complaining that Bernie promised the moon whether he could deliver it or not, gave her more of a run for her money than she expected as a result, pulled in lots of people who were disengaged from politics. And instead of learning from that and using the experience to her advantage in the general, she made the same mistakes all over again that made the primaries closer than they probably should have been, getting beat by another guy promising the moon whether he could (or even intended to) deliver it or not. Just a horrible, horrible campaign she ran, so out of touch with what needed to be done to win the election. She's got absolutely no one to blame but herself, her campaign staff, and the DNC. Go cry somewhere else HRC, you botched your shot so badly we ended up with Donald J ####### Trump as President of the U.S.
I agree she ran a terrible campaign though I don't blame her entirely for Trump. That's on everyone who voted for him first and foremost. And while I agree she ran a failed campaign I don't think that makes her viewpoints on what transpired any less relevant. Again, I think she's earned the right to respond to everything that occurred. At some point I agree she should fade away into the background. Like you said, she had her shot and blew it. 

 
I agree she ran a terrible campaign though I don't blame her entirely for Trump. That's on everyone who voted for him first and foremost. And while I agree she ran a failed campaign I don't think that makes her viewpoints on what transpired any less relevant. Again, I think she's earned the right to respond to everything that occurred. At some point I agree she should fade away into the background. Like you said, she had her shot and blew it. 
She can talk about the election and how she lost it, sure. Unfortunately in doing so, she just continues to display a lack of awareness that is truly astounding. She lost a national referendum against a guy who never should have sniffed office, and she can't figure out why. That's not someone who should be having a ton of influence on the future of the Democratic party. Retire from party leadership/politics already, go work for charities.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She can talk about the election and how she lost it, sure. Unfortunately in doing so, she just continues to display a lack of awareness that is truly astounding. She lost a national referendum against a guy who never should have sniffed office, and she can't figure out why. That's not someone who should be having a ton of influence on the future of the Democratic party. Retire from party leadership/politics already, go work for charities.
And Bernie lost the race to the person who lost to Trump.  Why aren't you as angry at him as you are Hillary?  

I continue to support Bernie when he's right on an issue and I'll vote for him if he runs for office and is the best candidate.  This idea that HRC has to sit back and shut up in early September of an off year b/c she lost an election is absurd.  It raises the question of why those folks don't hold Bernie, Kerry, Gore, etc. to the same standard.  

 
And Bernie lost the race to the person who lost to Trump.  Why aren't you as angry at him as you are Hillary?  

I continue to support Bernie when he's right on an issue and I'll vote for him if he runs for office and is the best candidate.  This idea that HRC has to sit back and shut up in early September of an off year b/c she lost an election is absurd.  It raises the question of why those folks don't hold Bernie, Kerry, Gore, etc. to the same standard.  
Bernie's still an elected representative for his state, actually participating governance and trying to uphold some liberal principles from the inside, he's not writing memoirs about how he lost the primary. Gore and Kerry did take some time out from political prominence after they sucked it. She should too. She needs to drop the bitterness and inability to comprehend how she got beat act and move on to something else. Beyond that, she's wasn't a great candidate, the Democrats need to move on from her (and those like her) so they can get to some kind of modernized platform and candidate pool rather than waste everyone's time with another iteration of Clintonesque approaches to Federal presence for the Democrats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is neither here not there but it was alluded to in the link AAA posted earlier - and I just find this interesting - what is a Democrat? Who gets to call themselves a Democrat?

Hillary says Sanders is not a Democrat like it's a magic bullet. Sanders is not a Dem (true) and wasn't before the race (true), and he has run for other parties and supported other parties' candidates, so (Hillary says) he is not entitled to lead the Party. - But he stands for some things that Democrats want and some other things that could potentially bring non-Democrats into the party.

I think the point that when Hillary says 'Sanders is not a Democrat' that drives away people who are interested in things that he promotes, and so that hurts "The Party", is maybe a good one.

Otoh a Party does have to be about something. A Party to be a party has to define what it stands for and then run leaders who stand for those values.

The sarcastic response is: hey look at all the 'conservative' things Hillary has stood for, so she has no grounds to speak on the issue. But then considering her CV she clearly does.

I don't know, I really can't figure that one out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see Tommy has jumped straight to the sexist attacks they tried running with against any Bernie supporters in the primaries.

 
This is neither here not there but it was alluded to in the link AAA posted earlier - and I just find this interesting - what is a Democrat? Who gets to call themselves a Democrat?

Hillary says Sanders is not a Democrat like it's a magic bullet. Sanders is not a Dem (true) and wasn't before the race (true), and he has run for other parties and supported other parties' candidates, so (Hillary says) he is not entitled to lead the Party. - But he stands for some things that Democrats want and some other things that could potentially bring non-Democrats into the party.

I think the point that when Hillary says 'Sanders is not a Democrat' that drives away people who are interested in things that he promotes, and so that hurts "The Party", is maybe a good one.

Otoh a Party does have to be about something. A Party to be a party has to define what it stands for and then run leaders who stand for those values.

The sarcastic response is: hey look at all the 'conservative' things Hillary has stood for, so she has no grounds to speak on the issue. But then considering her CV she clearly does.

I don't know, I really can't figure that one out.
I answered this question by looking at the party platform and looking at who's actions most closely matched that. Not all that difficult imo. 

 
Bernie's still an elected representative for his state, actually participating governance and trying to uphold some liberal principles from the inside, he's not writing memoirs about how he lost the primary. Gore and Kerry did take some time out from political prominence after they sucked it. She should too. She needs to drop the bitterness and inability to comprehend how she got beat act and move on to something else. Beyond that, she's wasn't a great candidate, the Democrats need to move on from her (and those like her) so they can get to some kind of modernized platform and candidate pool rather than waste everyone's time with another iteration of Clintonesque approaches to Federal presence for the Democrats.
I suspect she'll go back to doing the same thing she's done for the last 30-40 years, working to advance liberal interests on the issues she feels most passionate about. 

I understand that some liberals don't want to talk about the reasons November 8th happened, but I think that's a mistake.  It's September in a non-election year and with the speed at which political narratives move these days, we'll be long past HRC's book by next month, so I don't buy the argument that somehow HRC's book is holding Democrats back. 

I respect your opinion Groovus and always appreciate your perspective. I'm just constantly surprised by the vitriol and bitterness toward HRC from folks who agree with her on 99% of the issues.  

 
I suspect she'll go back to doing the same thing she's done for the last 30-40 years, working to advance liberal interests on the issues she feels most passionate about. 

I understand that some liberals don't want to talk about the reasons November 8th happened, but I think that's a mistake.  It's September in a non-election year and with the speed at which political narratives move these days, we'll be long past HRC's book by next month, so I don't buy the argument that somehow HRC's book is holding Democrats back. 

I respect your opinion Groovus and always appreciate your perspective. I'm just constantly surprised by the vitriol and bitterness toward HRC from folks who agree with her on 99% of the issues.  
That 1% is YUGE!

 
This is neither here not there but it was alluded to in the link AAA posted earlier - and I just find this interesting - what is a Democrat? Who gets to call themselves a Democrat?

Hillary says Sanders is not a Democrat like it's a magic bullet. Sanders is not a Dem (true) and wasn't before the race (true), and he has run for other parties and supported other parties' candidates, so (Hillary says) he is not entitled to lead the Party. - But he stands for some things that Democrats want and some other things that could potentially bring non-Democrats into the party.

I think the point that when Hillary says 'Sanders is not a Democrat' that drives away people who are interested in things that he promotes, and so that hurts "The Party", is maybe a good one.

Otoh a Party does have to be about something. A Party to be a party has to define what it stands for and then run leaders who stand for those values.

The sarcastic response is: hey look at all the 'conservative' things Hillary has stood for, so she has no grounds to speak on the issue. But then considering her CV she clearly does.

I don't know, I really can't figure that one out.
There is a lot of work that goes into leadership positions in a Party.  Fundraising, supporting legislation and policy positions of your fellow party members, working with them on coherent and consistent messages to win national and local elections, etc. All of those things advance the interests and platform of the Party, and usually require years of work within the Party. And it makes sense. A Party is most effective when it is unified and able to leverage that power to move their interests forward.  

Until recently, Bernie has done none of that, which is fine. He's not a Democrat, so why would he?  

 
I understand that some liberals don't want to talk about the reasons November 8th happened, but I think that's a mistake.
Also, I think we've spent a ton of time Monday morning quarterbacking this epic fail. The problem is, she (and those closely associated with the campaign) don't seem to be drawing the right conclusions about why she lost, and what the party needs to do to adjust.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, I think we've spent a ton of time Monday morning quarterbacking this epic fail. The problem is, she (and those closely associated with the campaign) don't seem to be drawing the right conclusions about why she lost, and what the party needs to do to adjust.
Nate Silver and the political data experts over at 538 seem to think Hillary's basically right about why she lost. :shrug:   https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/amp/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That 1% is YUGE!
I've never run into this sort of person personally. Where do we usually find them?  Those who want her to go away disagree on most of the unsettled issues. You might get to that % at a 50000 foot level.  

For example they might agree with paying for college.  But the devil is in the details and people quickly disagree with the approach. I wouldn't count that as being in"agreement" with her. 

It's a straw man the way it's presented here imo. The only way you get above 90 % is if you include the things that are already settled. 

 
Also, I think we've spent a ton of time Monday morning quarterbacking this epic fail. The problem is, she (and those closely associated with the campaign) don't seem to be drawing the right conclusions about why she lost, and what the party needs to do to adjust.
Perhaps. Though I haven't heard any reasoning for her losing that werent brought up many times during the election cycle. 

 
Otoh a Party does have to be about something. A Party to be a party has to define what it stands for and then run leaders who stand for those values.
The problem for many of us who identify as Independents is we recognize (like everyone else) that we are basically stuck with the 2 parties.  What are we to then do when both parties are against the things progressives want?  (As an aside I hate that label too - I don't want to be labelled)  Anyway, my personal goal isn't for a Democrat to win or even to help shape the Democratic party to be what I want.  My goal is to help elect people who are good, decent people who care about all of us. 

 
There is a lot of work that goes into leadership positions in a Party.  Fundraising, supporting legislation and policy positions of your fellow party members, working with them on coherent and consistent messages to win national and local elections, etc. All of those things advance the interests and platform of the Party, and usually require years of work within the Party. And it makes sense. A Party is most effective when it is unified and able to leverage that power to move their interests forward.  

Until recently, Bernie has done none of that, which is fine. He's not a Democrat, so why would he?  
Problem with this is that there is no mention of abiding by the party platform. Your essentially saying policy poisons don't matter as long as your playing the party game. Policy be damned. 

The irony here is and will always be that Bernie's actions were best aligned to the party platform. The party he wasn't even a part of. 

 
Nate Silver and the political data experts over at 538 seem to think Hillary's basically right about why she lost. :shrug:   https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/amp/
I don't see them saying anything like that.

I do see them saying stuff like this:

micah: Last one!

Clinton’s Midwest strategy. In the book, Clinton says her campaign did notunderinvest in the Midwest.

natesilver: So, I don’t totally buy that claim. Clinton definitely did underinvest in Michigan and Wisconsin (and Minnesota)....

perry: ...her staff, when I talked to them, and maybe this is self-serving, said that Clinton visits to some areas in rural Pennsylvania turned off voters. Her campaigning more there would not have helped and may have hurt.
Think about that for a bit. Then let me know what Chapter in HRC's book discusses this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions,  all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.
The working class left the Dems 20-30 years before the Dems left the working class.

 
I want to clarify a couple of points:

- I don't "blame" HRC for Trump - it's not her fault Trump ran, not her fault the Republicans lost their minds and nominated him and while you can say she ran a poor campaign there were millions of people who were note voting for her no matter what.  Honestly, like many have said, I just wish she would retire and disappear

- My problem here isn't HRC rehashing why she lost - it's her blaming Bernie and "Bernie Bros." for it.  I find that to be ridiculous and worthy of ridicule if she's going to continue to push that narrative

 
- My problem here isn't HRC rehashing why she lost - it's her blaming Bernie and "Bernie Bros." for it.  I find that to be ridiculous and worthy of ridicule if she's going to continue to push that narrative
Oh, she's got a ton of scapegoats:

Hillary Clinton: Political journalists "can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump"
Yeah, she's really dialed into why she lost.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I suspect she'll go back to doing the same thing she's done for the last 30-40 years, working to advance liberal interests on the issues she feels most passionate about. 

I understand that some liberals don't want to talk about the reasons November 8th happened, but I think that's a mistake.  It's September in a non-election year and with the speed at which political narratives move these days, we'll be long past HRC's book by next month, so I don't buy the argument that somehow HRC's book is holding Democrats back. 

I respect your opinion Groovus and always appreciate your perspective. I'm just constantly surprised by the vitriol and bitterness toward HRC from folks who agree with her on 99% of the issues.  
As someone who voted for her, she should s t f u because she is annoying. She is a marginally good candidate who has major flaws and whines about how she got a bad beat.

sort of the same reason why I don't want to listen to Phil Helmuth explaining how he lost some poker hand to a donkey in the wsop.

she is not likable. At all. But she is better than the current pos but she couldn't relate to middle america and paid for it.

she got 2 outed by trump. gg.

 
:yes:

Joy Reid‏ @JoyAnnReid 47m47 minutes ago

Excellent @HillaryClinton interview by #Maddow, and what a reminder

of the contrast between the president we have and the one we could have.

 
The Commish said:
Problem with this is that there is no mention of abiding by the party platform. Your essentially saying policy poisons don't matter as long as your playing the party game. Policy be damned. 

The irony here is and will always be that Bernie's actions were best aligned to the party platform. The party he wasn't even a part of. 
What are you talking about?  Of course policy positions matter.  

 
AAABatteries said:
The problem for many of us who identify as Independents is we recognize (like everyone else) that we are basically stuck with the 2 parties.  What are we to then do when both parties are against the things progressives want?  (As an aside I hate that label too - I don't want to be labelled)  Anyway, my personal goal isn't for a Democrat to win or even to help shape the Democratic party to be what I want.  My goal is to help elect people who are good, decent people who care about all of us. 
Democrats are "against" the things that progressives want?  

 
Gr00vus said:
I don't see them saying anything like that.

I do see them saying stuff like this:

Think about that for a bit. Then let me know what Chapter in HRC's book discusses this.
Then you didn't read the article.  They're generally agreeing with all of the things Hillary said.  

 
As someone who voted for her, she should s t f u because she is annoying. She is a marginally good candidate who has major flaws and whines about how she got a bad beat.

sort of the same reason why I don't want to listen to Phil Helmuth explaining how he lost some poker hand to a donkey in the wsop.

she is not likable. At all. But she is better than the current pos but she couldn't relate to middle america and paid for it.

she got 2 outed by trump. gg.
Were Gore and Kerry "annoying" as well when they lost, or is that just Clinton? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
I want to clarify a couple of points:

- I don't "blame" HRC for Trump - it's not her fault Trump ran, not her fault the Republicans lost their minds and nominated him and while you can say she ran a poor campaign there were millions of people who were note voting for her no matter what.  Honestly, like many have said, I just wish she would retire and disappear

- My problem here isn't HRC rehashing why she lost - it's her blaming Bernie and "Bernie Bros." for it.  I find that to be ridiculous and worthy of ridicule if she's going to continue to push that narrative
Big surprise here. Bernie bro doesn't want to own any of the responsibility for Nov 8th, yet blasts HRC for not taking responsibility, even though she's done so many times.  

 
Gr00vus said:
I don't see them saying anything like that.

I do see them saying stuff like this:

Think about that for a bit. Then let me know what Chapter in HRC's book discusses this.
Lots of folks in rural areas don't want to hear the truth.  HRC telling coal miners that their jobs weren't coming back and that she wanted to create job skills training programs for those in mining communities is absolutely the correct solution, but of course they'd rather hear Trump lie to them about bringing coal jobs back.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top