11 ms·
The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspecti
by jimmywanger 10y ago
The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns.
Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time.
The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tried to cover up email indiscretions?
Most people do believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. And this cluster of events can't be good.
- imron 10y ago> as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of ~~clowns~~ as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence. FTFY
- jimmywanger 10y ago> being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence. I have no problems accepting the fact that politicians might hire crooks to do some things that are extra legal. The fact that they're incompetent criminals who get caught and who don't understand the internet, that worries me.
- sillysaurus3 10y agoCan you help me understand your point of view?
- jimmywanger 10y agoIt might be kind of silly, but I think that the US government has to do a lot of shady things to ensure that we have a high standard of living and more of our share of natural resources. Look up the origin of the term "banana republic" if you don't believe me. Or just look through how many things we did in South/Central America due to the doctrine of manifest destiny. So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. But we should be discerning enough to figure out who to hire, and how to GET AWAY WITH IT to avoid repercussions. If you're the president, there's a lot more at stake here than your campaign - we're talking about full blown war.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe banality of evil and all that.
- PKop 10y agoThat's shadiness for the country's benefit you're describing, not shadiness for personal benefit to avoid criminal prosecution so you can get elected president... Shadiness to cover the tracks of previous shadiness to hide your own emails from FOIA requests.
- jimmywanger 10y agoThe question here is competence, and lack thereof. I think that skill in shadiness is transferrable across motives. If you can't plan a robbery of a convenience store for your own wallet, why should I let you plan the robbery of a bank to give it all away to charity? The ends (sorta) matter in a moralistic sort of way. But the means matter much more. You're playing for higher stakes here, not just criminal prosecution, but a low level brush war in the middle east if you mess things up.
- ookdatnog 10y ago> So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that. aka robbing from the poor and giving to the rich
- albinofrenchy 10y agoIts the Lil Wayne metric -- be good or be good at it. Every politician is presumably some level of corrupt; you might as well prefer the ones smart enough not to leave evidence everywhere.
- 794CD01 10y agoEvil can be harnessed to good with appropriate incentives. You can't incent a stupid person to be smart.
- imron 10y ago> do some things that are extra legal. Illegal. I have more problems with politicians hiring crooks to do illegal things for them, than with criminals being incompetent.
- mcphage 10y ago> Most people do believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. Which is why continuously pushing smoke, even when you know there's no fire, is such an effective strategy. How many Benghazi hearings were there, that all came to the same conclusion? But people hear "oh, there's another Benghazi hearing, it must mean something that there's so many!" even though everyone involved knows that it means nothing.
- 001sky 10y agoCouple of points -- (1) Colin powell's leaked e-mails apparently called the meetings a circus and a sideshow but also placed blame at the feet of HRC for outcome of that episode. that last bit isn't always quoted in the media. (2) The leak to the NYT about the server that broke this story appeared has been originated by the Obama administration. They were seeking to clip her wings as whispers about her policy differences with the Obama administration were circulating on Iran. Once HRC became such a sure thing she was inevitable as POTUS it would rended BSO an early lame duck, and on policy in the middle east where the two differ, would create issues for obama establishing a legacy. Obama now has the ability to pardon her (or in the actual turn of events, the Justice granted 'stonetear' limited immunity and killed a looming FBI indictment). So both of these narratives play into a deeper and more complex game existing in DC than any sound bite or talking point proffered from a PR agency will attest.
- jljljl 10y agoDo you have a source for #2? It defies belief, why would Obama clip the wings of his likely democratic successor, knowing that a Republican presidential would endanger Obamacare and several other major achievements of his administration?
- 001sky 10y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto... Cites obama admin source byline By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 2, 2015 24 hours before Netanyahu’s Full Speech Before Congress, Mar. 3, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000003547828/netanyahus-full-speech-before-congress.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/10000000354782...
- discodave 10y ago> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office and Hillary Clinton. Hillary may have issues but she is also possibly the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades.
- bpodgursky 10y agoUnfortunately, it's very easy to be both experienced and terrible at your job.
- TillE 10y ago> the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades George H. W. Bush was a two term vice president, director of the CIA, etc. I've been following this election pretty closely for more than a year, and I seriously couldn't tell you what Clinton's positive message is besides "I'm experienced". Nobody cares. Americans don't elect technocratic planks of wood. This is the worst, most inept presidental campaign I've ever seen. She's very nearly losing to a joke candidate.
- pdabbadabba 10y agoHe was elected a "couple of decades" ago. Feel old now? :)
- elgenie 10y agoHW won in 1988 and lost in 1992. 1996 was two decades ago.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- adamrezich 10y ago
- brown9-2 10y ago> and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website mentioning a meme on her website is disqualifying?
- imron 10y ago> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog. In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint Trump as racist, because that's really all they have left at this point, and even that isn't working too well.
- cloakandswagger 10y agoI especially love the pop-up modal asking me "Is Trump unfit to be President?" on that site. There's only a single button (I Agree), and clicking the X in the corner to close the modal causes the button to be pushed at the same time. For someone as "experienced" as Clinton, her campaign is astoundingly incompetent.
- conanbatt 10y agoI clicked the link, saw that popup and had to share that abomination. What the hell.
- jungletek 10y agoYou say incompetent, I say intentional. It's an inverse Hanlon's Razor situation.
- cloakandswagger 10y agoThe whole point of click-bait ads with fake vote buttons is to entice people with the perception of choice. Only giving me one option offends my sensibilities, even if I belong to that person's camp. I can't think of a person on earth who enjoys having their autonomy removed. So at best you've pissed off the people who support you, and at worst you've reinforced the other camp's argument that you're an authoritarian control-freak.
- rezashirazian 10y agoOn top of all of these what I found fascinating is the amount of blind luck bestowed upon Trump. The guy has swallowed a horseshoe.
- imjustsaying 10y agoI think this demonstrates the frailty of a two-party system. If one candidate in the general unexpectedly gets knocked out, the election is all but over. Granted, the primaries remedy this to an extent, except when you have the unabashed stacking that was employed to counter recent 2012 and 2016 primary campaigns. Democracy is at its most interactive in the early stages of the election, but the vast majority of people will never leverage that opportunity. People don't act until a media apparatus cues them to cast a vote for its packaged candidate de jour.
- adamrezich 10y agoGood thing here in America we don't have a two-party system!
- jimmywanger 10y agoI don't think it's blind luck. Trump really knows how to seize advantage of a weakness. And remember, he's already primed the pump. He's labeled Clinton as "crooked" and "lacking stamina" far before all this happened. He must have seen something, cause everything she's done since then has confirmed it.
- devopsproject 10y ago> blind luck He has been successful in business and is now at the helm of one of the most powerful political parties in the known universe. No one has that kind of "luck". There is something more there.
- phil248 10y agoHow many more decades of witch hunts and investigations before we find some damn fire?
- umanwizard 10y agoWhat do you mean? We found it. This is fire.
- heurist 10y agoIt's an old unverified post on reddit being reviewed by republicans in the House of Representatives. Has everyone gone mad? We are literally paying our representatives to waste time reading Reddit based on a tenuous connection and some miniscule hope that it some how someday leads to FINALLY exposing the CORRUPT Hillary, or even better, hurting her chances of winning the presidency. Even if this were illegal, everything could be done with the best intentions and primarily legal concordance just like the email scandal, and STILL House Republicans would investigate it as if it were a war crime. Taxpayer money is being wasted on this bullshit, and yet these dipwads keep being reelected. THAT is the fire. In this period of great economic uncertainty, a billionaire real estate tycoon and media mogul with no political experience, inflammatory rhetoric, and awful, authoritarian policy proposals is a serious contender for the most powerful office in the world, I'd say we have bigger problems to worry about tHan anything Hillary may have done. Our economy, livelihood, and potentially our freedom is at stake under this threat. Trump is a true menace to society and we are treating any little flaw shown by Hillary as villainy in the highest order. It's baffling, and terrifying. In short, I'd take Crooked Hillary over Tyrant Trump any day.
- stonetear 10y agoHead meets sand.
- Mao_Zedang 10y agoIt will happen pretty fast after a regime change, you cant expect dems to indite their own.
- Pxtl 10y agoThe fact that those items have more negative impact on her electability than her mentorship under Henry Kissinger is terribly depressing.
- CPLX 10y agoIt's going to be mildly amusing when our bizzare micro-obsession over State Department email retention policies leads to domestic ethnic cleansing.