3 ms·

Could you tell me more about that?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
He means Trump. As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up. How Hillary skated by with many people not knowing or not caring that in more ways than one she is responsible for the president they hate so much, I have no idea. Edit: you know the emails are on Wikileaks HN, the chain starts with “Friday Strategy”
- banads 6y ago
  Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?
  - brianlweiner 6y ago
    Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Millions of people also judged Hillary as being unfit for office. She was a horribly flawed candidate. (Not saying that Trump wasn't...) So, yes, Hillary in fact does deserve some of the blame. She was probably the only candidate the Democrats could have run who would have lost to Trump.
    - undersuit 6y ago
      If the accusation is true then she certainly shares some of the blame.
    - banads 6y ago
      That's not what I gathered from the comment. It seemed like they were saying that Hillary had desired to run against Trump, according to those leaked emails. Is it false that Hillary wanted to run against Trump, back when many (including myself) didn't think he had a chance?
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false? reply Yea man, I’ve given up caring. Emotions > truth. A one second search of “hillary pied piper” will lead to the Wikileaks archived emails, tons of discussion from Salon to Fox News to Vox to Breitbart. The truth isn’t important. Only the narrative. I don’t have an ironic username here, hiding undesirable facts is not a side effect of hyper polarization, this is by design of the vote system. Hide things that make you feel sad, you don’t want others to feel sad, do your duty and make the bad man go away. It’s why the first guy only eluded to it, you don’t want to risk your internet points! I knew the truth about how Hillary leveraging her media connections to get Trump billions in free coverage would be unpopular here. Maybe I should believe that a few hundred thousand in Russian purchased Facebook ads swayed people but billions in coverage from US media didn’t. I don’t care. I refuse the chilling effect.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - majormajor 6y ago
    This whole subthread is a giant off-topic diversion. To be comparable to the original legislative situation here, Trump would've been introduced and controlled deliberately by Clinton. So instead we just have a thread which changes the subject to an un-needed not-connected tired blame-fest.
    - javajosh 6y ago
      That's not true; the GOP is the actor in both cases, and in both cases put forward an extreme thing (in one case a person, in another case, a law). The point is not to be complacent with the intention behind the extreme law, and assume it won't pass, since the analogous thing happened. I think that's a pretty tight point, and on topic, but I would agree that most of this subthread is OT.
- javajosh 6y ago
  It's true Hilary underestimated Trump. So did the other GOP candidates. They wanted Trump in the race to make their positions seem less extreme, their manner more presidential, and they hoped that his vast media attention would splash over onto them. Trump was expected to be a kind of "loss leader" for the GOP establishment, something wacky and attention-grabbing and low quality, but gets people in the store to buy something a little more sane. (It turns out the average member of a vastly wealthy sole super-power can become complacent, and grow profoundly ignorant of history, politics, philosophy and economics, so ignorant in fact that they cannot recognize a would-be autocrat. He says, "I can do whatever I want, like put my boot in your face," and they respond ecstatic, "At least he tells it like it is!" I think this flies in the face of every educated person's impression of who America is, which is why Trump blindsided everyone, left and right.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

He means Trump. As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up. How Hillary skated by with many people not knowing or not caring that in more ways than one she is responsible for the president they hate so much, I have no idea. Edit: you know the emails are on Wikileaks HN, the chain starts with “Friday Strategy”

banads 6y ago
Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?
- brianlweiner 6y ago
  Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Millions of people also judged Hillary as being unfit for office. She was a horribly flawed candidate. (Not saying that Trump wasn't...) So, yes, Hillary in fact does deserve some of the blame. She was probably the only candidate the Democrats could have run who would have lost to Trump.
  - undersuit 6y ago
    If the accusation is true then she certainly shares some of the blame.
  - banads 6y ago
    That's not what I gathered from the comment. It seemed like they were saying that Hillary had desired to run against Trump, according to those leaked emails. Is it false that Hillary wanted to run against Trump, back when many (including myself) didn't think he had a chance?
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false? reply Yea man, I’ve given up caring. Emotions > truth. A one second search of “hillary pied piper” will lead to the Wikileaks archived emails, tons of discussion from Salon to Fox News to Vox to Breitbart. The truth isn’t important. Only the narrative. I don’t have an ironic username here, hiding undesirable facts is not a side effect of hyper polarization, this is by design of the vote system. Hide things that make you feel sad, you don’t want others to feel sad, do your duty and make the bad man go away. It’s why the first guy only eluded to it, you don’t want to risk your internet points! I knew the truth about how Hillary leveraging her media connections to get Trump billions in free coverage would be unpopular here. Maybe I should believe that a few hundred thousand in Russian purchased Facebook ads swayed people but billions in coverage from US media didn’t. I don’t care. I refuse the chilling effect.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- majormajor 6y ago
  This whole subthread is a giant off-topic diversion. To be comparable to the original legislative situation here, Trump would've been introduced and controlled deliberately by Clinton. So instead we just have a thread which changes the subject to an un-needed not-connected tired blame-fest.
  - javajosh 6y ago
    That's not true; the GOP is the actor in both cases, and in both cases put forward an extreme thing (in one case a person, in another case, a law). The point is not to be complacent with the intention behind the extreme law, and assume it won't pass, since the analogous thing happened. I think that's a pretty tight point, and on topic, but I would agree that most of this subthread is OT.
javajosh 6y ago
It's true Hilary underestimated Trump. So did the other GOP candidates. They wanted Trump in the race to make their positions seem less extreme, their manner more presidential, and they hoped that his vast media attention would splash over onto them. Trump was expected to be a kind of "loss leader" for the GOP establishment, something wacky and attention-grabbing and low quality, but gets people in the store to buy something a little more sane. (It turns out the average member of a vastly wealthy sole super-power can become complacent, and grow profoundly ignorant of history, politics, philosophy and economics, so ignorant in fact that they cannot recognize a would-be autocrat. He says, "I can do whatever I want, like put my boot in your face," and they respond ecstatic, "At least he tells it like it is!" I think this flies in the face of every educated person's impression of who America is, which is why Trump blindsided everyone, left and right.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]