Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

no.

when an election progresses over 16 months and involves more than a dozen candidates and 100 million voters, the outcome hinges on something more than dick pics

not so. close elections hinge on thousands of factors

both otm

when an election progresses over 16 months and involves more than a dozen candidates and 100 million voters, the outcome hinges on something more than dick pics

― A is for (Aimless)

i know we'd like to believe this

Surely the point of that article is in the final paragraph:

In statement, E Randol Schoenberg, a Los Angeles lawyer who had sued to obtain the court papers, said on Tuesday that he saw “nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between secretary Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin”.

That is to say, it wasn't some dick pics, or a rake of their own design. It was institutional failure at the FBI and the media, caused by bullshit both-sides-ism, that blew a story out of proportion and allowed people to paint Clinton as equally bad as Trump. Because saying both sides were equally bad were too many places seen as evidence of objectivity.

I'm a bit frustrated by the seizing of my liberal friends on the Ivanka world bank fund Saudi donation thing given how impossible it was to convince them that there was anything remotely unseemly about the Clinton Foundation (which, unlike this Ivanka thing -- a World Bank project -- is actually controlled by the Clintons). Really I see many more parallels between the Clintons and the Trumps, and the Clintons are somehow always given a pass - nepotism, conflicts of interest, even sexual harassment and rape.

cool lookin' book

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/how-i-lost/

With a foreword by JULIAN ASSANGE

disgusting imo

yeah id prob skip the intro

in the words of the Democratic candidate and her close associates

but speaking of disgusting

"But her slaves!"

I was wondering when that was gonna cross over

idgi

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves

Slaves make license plates. Slaves sew products for third-party companies. Slaves cook for other slaves.

The Hillary-Bernie online camp battles get more annoying by the day (even with her mini-comeback tour I don't think she'd run in 2020) but the way she wrote about that is pretty horrifying.

WHO GIVES A FUCK

the Clintons used slave labor when he was governor of Arkansas and his wife was tone deaf about it? Fuck I'm glad to hear this is blowing up on twitter I thought I would have to think about some actual politics shit today

Thank god we didn't elect this woman amirite fellas

Without clicking on that can I just check what slave means in that article pls

Unpaid prison labour, see also that handy loophole in the 13th amendment

If you just want to read the excerpt without the commentary, it can be found here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBp4hQYVoAER0g8.jpg

there was also something about a country club they used to golf at too

It's wrong to keep throwing around the word "slave" in reference to this.

Though if you want to go ahead and talk about how Mike Huckabee "freed a slave" and then the "former slave" went to Washington and killed a bunch of cops, go right ahead. At least you'll sound consistent.

it's a more honest way to talk about the prison industrial complex than is generally done imho

WHO GIVES A FUCK

― El Tomboto, Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:47 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LALALALALA

What? You mean we almost elected a racist as president?

Whew! Way to dodge a bullet there USA

It would be great if this was a part of establishing a more honest way to talk about the prison industrial complex, but I suspect it's just a way to shit on Clinton again, and many of the people outraged will be laughing at the new season of Orange is the New Black tomorrow.

I don't care about the excerpt, but the logic/morality pretzels being thrown out there in her defense over it are depressing. Take the L, people.

and yeah obviously this is just one small anecdote indicating a much, much broader issue

I don't think it's that hard to defend her, honestly. It was tradition, and she wasn't the governor so it wasn't her call. There.

to do something would have been a huge inconvenience to them

It's obviously horrific, and if it brings attention to the horror, good, and the Clintons clearly played their part in a horrific system. But are anyone surprised? I've never been to Arkansas, but it strikes me as exactly the kind of thing I would expect to happen in Arkansas, and we've always known Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. So...

It's just fairly typical that this was posted in the thread about Hillary Clinton, and not a thread about race or the prison system or anything else.

Simon OTM.

what would be surprising is if they weren't acquainted w Trump at all during their early 90s real estate golfing with rich people heyday

It was tradition, and she wasn't the governor so it wasn't her call.

She was married to the governor. Do you not think she could have done anything about it if she'd cared to?

Sure. Eleanor Roosevelt passed and signed an anti-lynching law singlehandedly.

I kinda don't think it's a particularly good thing to criticize women for the decisions of their husbands. At the end of the day, it wasn't her call.

She is still implicated in the system, sure, but the guilt of Hillary Clinton is not the main issue here.

she's being criticized more (that I've seen) for the language she used in discussing it than for Bill's role in perpetuating it.

I agree that attacking anyone through their spouse (or any other family member) is below the belt.

she's being criticized more (that I've seen) for the language she used in discussing it than for Bill's role in perpetuating it.

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), 8. juni 2017 18:28 (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Link? What I've seen is mostly 'They owned slaves' and only based on a single excerpt taken out of context. I would love to know why she's even writing about it, it seems to build to a point. For those who don't know, btw, the book is It Takes a Village from 1996.

I don't use twitter at work if I can help it but the first people I saw posting about it were pretty squarely focused on the excerpt and its tone. Since then, yes, there's been plenty of "they owned slaves!" shitposting, but such is the nature of Twitter.

i suspect people on both sides of this issue are going to be making arguments in less than good faith -- "who cares" basically means let's focus on other things here -- but actually excusing the practice and clinton's actions seems...very bad

What actions?

i'm cool w/discussing the reasons why hillary lost, only bc it's interesting to look back at what went wrong strategically and demographically and all, but as far as why the clintons are bad, i mean at this point i just don't want to talk about them as people anymore. though maybe we can't have one w/o the other, idk.

What actions?

― Frederik B, Thursday, June 8, 2017 1:02 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the actually having a slave thing