2 ms·
No, she didn't. If your house is burning you don't want the fireman to talk about how they are going to work to improve building codes. You want them to put wa
by api 9y ago
No, she didn't.
If your house is burning you don't want the fireman to talk about how they are going to work to improve building codes. You want them to put water in it right f'ing now.
Her language is that of a building inspector, not a fireman or an EMT. Trump's rhetoric was about specific immediate action to tackle an emergency.
Trump won by making such claims. He didn't mean it and his proposals were pretty shallow but at least he acknowledged the crisis and put forward credible sounding specific measures like terminating TPP and renegotiating NAFTA. This "right f'ing now" rhetoric is why he won. The alt-right, while noisy, is not that big. Trump won by carrying traditionally Democratic Midwestern counties because he said he would do something about the liquidation of the middle class, not by appealing to "fashy" nuts and 4chan shitlords.
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoAre you saying Trump's lies were more believable than Clinton's truth? I agree, and I've already said I blame the propagandists that we have instead of a media that actually serves the people. It wasn't me that mentioned the alt-right, and it's the propaganda being piped in by Fox and Sinclair that I had mostly in mind. They've totally screwed their viewers since they hit the air. It's more like mass elder abuse than a news channel.
- api 9y agoYes, sort of. When you are in a crisis you want specific things to be done right now. Trump promised that while Clinton offered vague wonky rhetoric that sounded like empty platitudes. She is far better qualified to actually do something but she didn't communicate that she really gets the magnitude of the problem. If Clinton had acknowledged the magnitude of the economic and social crisis afflicting the interior and then offered e.g. a 10 point plan of specific actions to help she would have won, possibly by a large margin.