Critique
Critique
I literally do blame the Democrats for Trump, and if you don't, you weren't paying attention.
Plenty of us were critiquing Clinton's campaign on those merits and were consistently talked down to in shocker the same way we're being talked down to now. Shocker, she lost. I remember saying a few weeks before the election "We're about to get Brexited." I put my vote down for Clinton, because Trump is fucking insane, and that was clear before he was President. It was clear in the fucking 1980's.
Being able to critique our leaders is supposed to be what is the difference between us and conservative voters. They're the cult who unquestioningly believes all the bullshit that comes out of Trump's mouth and diapers. I find it weird that people think we should be more like them in regards to our leaders like that would be a good thing.
You're viewing a single thread.
People attribute a lot more competence to the DNC then they've really demonstrated.
Like yeah HRC might have legitimately thought that way about Trump, but if her own campaigning didn't win the election for herself suggesting it's what put Trump over the finish line or even that it was of any significant contribution is pretty disingenuous.
Not to mention how the DNC and HRC aren't able to mind control voters, like 99% of attempts to make Trump into the DNC boogeyman's fault ignore the choice voters made to vote for him or to just not vote for Clinton, and the "shoved Clinton down our throats" narrative is pretty racist since it basically casts Clinton's primary win through significant support by the black and poc vote as illegitimate.
We almost had a double down on that shit in 2020 but the "low information voter" dog whistlers just decided to blame everything on Clyburn this time.
I mean, I wouldn't really say my critique is that they're "competent." Hubris does not imply competence.
I would say elevating someone like Trump because you think it's an easy win falls under "incompetent."
Clinton isn't the only reason he won, but acting like her campaign didn't have an impact on Trump, and that her campaign centering him isn't also part of why he ended up the nominee is acting like she never had any influence or impact at all, is also not true.
Clinton's campaign literally had press access and so to act like her campaign didn't influence what the media discussed is also brazenly ignoring what happened. Did she make Trump President? No. Did she give him way more opportunity to win than he would have had otherwise? Yes.
You don't have to be competent for that.
Ehhhh, attributing the boatload of free coverage trump racked up as the result of the Clinton campaign seems a little silly.
Every network ran trump coverage because it was ratings gold. I remember many non political friends who couldn't wait to watch the debates for the sheer idiocy.
I'd say it's true to say that Clinton wanted to elevate trump. But it also seems ludicrous to suggest the only reason he got through the republican primaries was because of Clinton's deep and friendly contacts in the right wing traditional and social media wings. (Just imagine the poor Clinton staffer calling up Breitbart.)
Edit: Just look at the list of press contacts. Do you think any Republican primary voters were waiting on Rachel Maddow or Ronan Farrow's opinion?!?
Did she make Trump President? No. Did she give him way more opportunity to win than he would have had otherwise? Yes.
Did she make Trump President? No. Did she give him way more opportunity to win than he would have had otherwise? Yes.
But it also seems ludicrous to suggest the only reason he got through the republican primaries was because of Clinton’s deep and friendly contacts in the right wing traditional and social media wings.
Yeah it's really easy to argue when you just make up shit and don't actually listen to what the other person said. I literally didn't fucking argue that, chucklefuck.
This kind of response is literally why I made this post. Because it doesn't matter what we say you people will argue with a fucking strawman anyway.
Calm down kid.
I literally didn’t fucking argue that, chucklefuck.
but acting like her campaign didn’t have an impact on Trump, and that her campaign centering him isn’t also part of why he ended up the nominee is acting like she never had any influence or impact at all, is also not true.
Arguing that Clinton's campaign is a large part of why he ended up the nominee is a little silly.
but acting like her campaign didn’t have an impact on Trump, and that her campaign centering him isn’t also part of why he ended up the nominee is acting like she never had any influence or impact at all, is also not true.
Get that reading comprehension under control, buddy. Did I say "large part" or "part of."
If it wasn't a large part, it's pretty silly to get worked up about it, isn't it?
I'm more worked up because you're misrepresenting what I said. You don't think that plays into it?
You've already called me "kid" even though I'm almost fifty, and you're trying to act like my cares are silly and immature. You clearly care enough to try to minimize the idea but not enough to give a valid critique that isn't a strawman.
But sure, it's silly to get worked up about politics! /s Get fucked, asswipe. Try arguing in good faith.
I mean, I quoted what you wrote so unless your pesky words are misrepresenting what you said...
In any reasonable interpretation, if I'm complaining that someone's acts were a part of something, them being a meaningful part is implied. And it borders on ludicrous to argue that Clinton had any meaningful part of trump's republican nomination.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith. It's more that you are making some silly albeit strident arguments.
even though I’m almost fifty
Oooof. Given that your first reaction was to call me a chucklefuck, well dang, I guess maturity isn't for everyone? Most mature folks who are as actively unpleasant as you seem to be generally have some serious issue or deeper unhappiness and I'm sorry if that's the case for you. I hope things get better.