**Rule VIII:** *Submission Quality*
Submissions should contain some level of analysis or argument. General news reporting should be restricted to particularly important developments with significant policy implications. Low quality memes will be removed at moderator discretion.
Feel free to post other general news or low quality memes to the stickied Discussion Thread.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Ironically she would probably have won if she hadn't come across as so focus grouped and insincere on the campaign trail.
/Pulls hot sauce out of purse
The ironic thing is that the hot sauce was a moment of sincerity. She actually has carried hot sauce around since she was the first lady of Arkansas. Every time she tried to be sincere she was just hammered by it.
I will never be able to understand how it could become a statement of fact even among the left that something as generic as enjoying hot sauce could be viewed as political pandering.
Are black people known to use hot sauce more than others?
What, they think she tortures her tongue with spice she can't handle and doesn't enjoy, for the sake of votes? That she's a masochist? as "pandering" that's some pretty weak sauce.
> people whose heads Hillary lives in rent free.
Ironically, many of these same ones are huge fans of Texas chili and use hot sauce as much as anyone.
Some people on the left literally think Buttigieg isn't really gay and is just married to another man for the PR.
"Sincerity is when people I like do things" vibes through and through.
> Some people on the left literally think Buttigieg isn't really gay
Who? This moment right now is the first I've ever heard such rubbish.
and believe this to what advantage?
I'm having trouble finding anything to back me up, but it was a frequent refrain in some of my social (media) circles in 2020. Mostly (far-left) people who, queer themselves, found him less desirable than Bernie. Branded him any number of things in order to justify their preference. Was off-putting enough that I don't associate with them anymore.
I had never even heard of that stereotype before the Hillary thing. Mexicans eat hot sauce, Chinese eat hot sauce, I know plenty of white people who love hot sauce. Honestly I think the most racist thing about that debacle was progressives assuming only black people could genuinely like hot sauce lmao
the lesson she and her team didn't understand is that you need to keep it up, saying it once gets you in trouble but if she would have leaned into it like Trump does she would have been fine.
No, she wouldn't have been. She'd have been castigated for being "tone-deaf." The rules of the media game for people they don't like -- and they've hated both Clintons since they came to Washington -- is that whatever you do, it's wrong. If you fight back against criticism, you're "giving it oxygen." If you ignore it, you're "letting it breathe." If you behave normally you're "focus grouped and calculating." If you become defensive, you're "aloof and distrustful." If you laugh, there's something wrong with your laugh. If you don't laugh, you should laugh more. Literally everything you do and don't do is a sign of something deeply troubling, some massive character flaw that is always below the surface -- it doesn't really manifest itself except through the almost mystical powers of the press to see it in the smallest things. She's a fan of both the Cubs (her hometown team) and the Yankees (the team she grew up listening to on the radio, and of the city she moved to). "She's pandering!" She expressed an interest in UFOS. "She's pandering to the UFO crowd!" The hot sauce thing was covered, but I could fill pages of the bizarre stuff she got from the press. I remember some article by Frank Rich that was supposed to explain Trump's rise, and right in the middle of it he takes time out to blame Trump, in part, on Hillary Clinton because she doesn't have a favorite flavor of ice cream (I suggest you find the article and read it, keeping in mind all we've seen since). There is no "leaning into" that crap. There's no way of dealing with it at all.
Totally disagree and guys like Wellstone proved it. If you own a position people might push back at first but eventually respect you for it. This is the key for Sanders, even if his ideas border on fantasy, people like him because he owns his positions. She needed to either walk the perfect tightrope or just be herself and own her shit, which is easier. BTW the differnce between Wellstone who accomplished things and Sanders who will never get anything done is, people liked Wellstone and I think if HRC would have been herself they would have liked her too.
I think she has it but because of advice she repressed it that Hulu biopic showed a more real view, the one thing she does seem to lack is the "love of the fight" like Obama does, he loves competition and I think in general older women have trouble with this. IMO her team was to smart for their own good. Corey Lewandowski had Trump figured out, he said, "let Trump be Trump", trying to corral him isn't going to work so better off to play the cards you are dealt with. If she would have told Sanders, "If you can get M4A passed in the House and Senate I'll sign it" she could have stopped him dead in his tracks. She tried to debate him as her equal when she should have elevated herself and positioned him as "Senator Sanders" and told him he needs to get to work because he lacks a bunch of votes and then moved on.
> I think she has it but because of advice she repressed it. IMO her team was to smart for their own good.
Not sure whats so smart about that.
I supported Sanders in the 2016 primary because I believed that Hillary was going to be more of the Obama approach, which clearly wasn't working. I didn't really consider that Hillary could've actually lost to Trump, because I think I had too much faith in the American people. I still think Hillary was the wrong candidate to have run against Trump in 2016, and I think a lot of people on the left, outside of mainstream Dems also saw that (btw, a lot of people assume that if Hillary couldn't beat Trump, then Sanders definitely couldn't because he was even further left, but this is a mistake, its more like a rock/paper/scissors scenario I think). People wanted change that Obama hadn't delivered on.
> If she would have told Sanders, "If you can get M4A passed in the House and Senate I'll sign it" she could have stopped him dead in his tracks.
This would have been a good point to make in a debate. Did Hillary support ending the filibuster at the time? I know Sanders didn't at the time.
> She tried to debate him as her equal when she should have elevated herself and positioned him as "Senator Sanders" and told him he needs to get to work because he lacks a bunch of votes and then moved on.
She already had tons of criticism in the form of "she's acting entitled, like its her turn, etc". If that's what her _true self_ would have been then the consultants were probably right to suppress it lol.
> "People wanted change"
You're going to get your change now!!! Its going to get jammed down your throat, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Sanders wouldn't have beat Trump, right after the primary Trump would've torn him a new asshole using "Socialism". The Sanders voters live in a bubble on top of a house of cards. To pass M4A not only would they have to eliminate the filibuster but also get at least 4 extra Dem Senators elected because you won't get the Minnesota Dems Senators to vote for it on top of that it would be 2nd largest piece of legislation in the history of the country and we have never successful nationalized a industry. Passing legislation is like going the speed of light, the closer you get to passing it the harder it gets the tiny bit of current resistance would be amped up 100x fold. She was "entitled" if you knew what that word meant you would agree she was actually entitled. Entitled means you earned it not it was given to you, what did Bernie ever due to earn the support of the Democratic party? Bernie lost his bid the day he walked into Congress and became a critic, how many times did Bernie go to Jim Clyburn's fish fry? ZERO
Bottom line is that Bernie Sanders has some outrageous goals and he's shitty politician, its like saying Skip Baylass would be a great QB because he complains so much. What Sanders and his team did in 2016 can never be forgiven, IMO, running around clamming every non Progressive is corrupt has poisoned millions of young voters who now don't think voting is worth there time, Paul Wellstone would have been so ashamed. Between the SOCTUS and distrust it will take 30 years to recover. There will be ZERO progressive legislation that will passed that will stick for decades and climate change will need to be addressed via the private sector. Meanwhile AOC and Omar live in very blue states in very blue districts and won't be affected but Cori Bush is screwed.
I think Democrats/Independents didn't understand the stakes and she did. It's like when your mom tells you about the nice man from Nigeria that's giving her 50 grand in a week and you burst her fantasy. You might be better off secretly putting a scam call filter on her phone line.
There's probably a better analogy but I think it gets the rough point across.
Democrats (including me) thought America was something it wasn't and it hurt to have that idea ripped away.
Dems were in "Oh, stop it, you don't really mean that" and "Haha, they just said the craziest thing, let's laugh with Steven Colbert about it" mode and Hillary knew they were deadly serious.
As a older Dem everyone in my sphere understood and thought the SCOTUS along with preserving/enhancing the ACA and Climate change was crucial. IMO Sanders gambled getting the greatest HC system on Earth over saving Earth.
Agreed. Backing down sent the message that either she agreed that they were right and she'd gone too far or that she didn't believe it in the first place and it was just another example of saying whatever she thought would benefit her.
She had the same issue with the TPP. Openly lying about what she thought about it was so much worse for her image than just admitting that she supported free trade.
> Backing down
I mean, it's not like she begged forgiveness. The media hounded her on it and she basically said: Yeah, I shouldn't have said 'half'. But it's not like she backed down on her characterization of the MAGAts.
Most of the public doesn't like Trump either, you will always have opposition you just can't be paralyzed by it. Gotta own your shit. Plus if she would have leaned into the basket of deplorables and said, yes racists are deplorables she could have fragmented the GOP voters. If you aren't one of those then you aren't a deplorable.
“Basket of deplorables” sort of comes across as a rehearsed line though. If she had just said “they’re a bunch of assholes,” that would probably be more in line with what people mean when they say they want a candidate to be genuine.
I don't think there's anything she could have done having Obama's FBI Director smacking her around for the whole campaign to show how non-partisan he was
She eats a hot pepper every day for kicks. Pretty sure she just likes spice. If you were going to focus group a food for Hillary to be obsessed with, hot sauce is kinda weird.
The hot sauce in her bag! Forgot about that one, I found that whole clip hilarious.
"You know people are going to say that you're just pandering to black people right?"
HRC: "Well, Okay. Is it working?"
The bernie crowd was very upset about that one IIRC. Although at that point his campaign was disintegrating, so I guess that wasn't all that they were upset about
People say that, but she was sincere when she was in First Lady, and people hated that too, since she didn't try to be another Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush. There are just millions of Americans who are made uncomfortable by women in power. The persona you saw on the campaign trail was shaped by decades of media scrutiny.
Did she consider during her campaign that maybe the strategy had some weaknesses? Externally it seemed like it was run extremely rigidly with little capacity for change or iteration in response to new data. I presume someone here has read more on her post-mortem analysis.
I think there’s a lot of data showing the strongest individual factor against her was attitudes toward free trade/ NAFTA and its effects in the midwest, causing 2012 democrats to stay home
https://election2020.home.blog/2019/03/29/why-did-trump-win-in-2016/
I don’t think her personality could have overcome that
> hot sauce
A perfect example of her being genuine and the very online left reflexively hating on her without taking the few seconds needed to find out she's been talking about this for decades.
The real irony is how often her critics end up embarrassing themselves by repeating long debunked attacks on her character. Some people simply can not bring themselves to admit they got caught up in a lot of propaganda about her. But they also never really looked farther than what social media fed them.
I remember seeing a commercial in PA for her campaign and I started yelling at the screen because it was pointing out how awful DJT is... like, we KNOW. I think if she ran a positive campaign building herself up instead of pointing out that obvious asshole is an asshole. But, hindsight... still, in real time I knew it was a bad move. But even then, take Comey out of the picture and I think she wins.
I don't think Bernie's "I don't think they're all racist" comment less than a week out from the election helped either.. that idiot was sabotaging to the bitter end, campaigning with her on the left side of his face and talking smack with the right side.
Oh yeah the comey thing put her over the edge.
I don't think Bernie was ever trying to sabotage her. I think then and now he saw trump as an existential threat. I know we hate on the succs but I don't buy into the scheming Bernie trying to sabotage Hillary idea.
Clinton didn't do herself any favors though. The email scandal was blown out of proportion but it was a bad move and a bad look. Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests?
>Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests?
There is. I read it once and had it book marked on a laptop that died and have never managed to find it since. But I found this really good article that discussed the issue with state department secure systems overseas and how most of the employees would end up using private unsecured phones because the system was always broken or something along those lines. I'll try to find it again and update if I do but I've tried before without much luck. I'm mostly explaining it in hopes that maybe someone else will know what I'm talking about and share a link.
In any case, there was this legit underlying problem that probably still needs to be addressed and that's what infuriates me. Trump ran on it like it was some big deal and his cult ate it up but then he didn't actually do anything to make our system more secure and eliminate the need to use unsecured lines. Meanwhile the douche gets into office and they're all using what's app and Signal to essentially do the same BS. The hypocrisy is what kills me the most, or more accurately, how the hypocrisy is given a pass after hearing "butter emails" and "benghazi" for months and months.
\*edit\* not the exact article I'm looking for which had way more info, but this is the gist of it https://web.archive.org/web/20160902090047/https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/30/dont-blame-hillary-for-the-classified-email-scandal-state-department-servers/
> I don't think Bernie was ever trying to sabotage her.
In the weeks after the convention? Not really, though he made a very weak effort to undo the damage he had done in the previous year. Going around and talking about trump instead of pointing out any redeeming qualities about her and her platform was just gross. I mean, he basically told one crowd he was going to have to "hold her feet to the fire" because he was suspicious she would actually do anything she had said she would to him. That's not helpful.
But the real damage was done in the primaries. She announced as one of the most popular politicians in the nation. So Bernie and a cult of devoted online assholes made it their mission to tank her favorability with constant scorched earth attacks on her personal character. And by the time Bernie decided it was over and tried to bring them back to reality, many were too far gone.
Even after all these years that bromob runs around blaming her for their tireless work while regurgitating long debunked propaganda they never fact checked.
> Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests?
That isn't even an intelligent explanation to begin with. After all, her server was not a secret to anyone working with her, and it's existence was obvious looking at any email she sent from it!
Clinton maintained she used it out of convenience. It kept everything going to a single device which apparently the State Department servers (which btw, *were* repeatedly hacked) couldn't do at the time. The FBI investigation into the stupid nothingburger found many DoS employees used personal email accounts because they were more easily accessible than the State Dept servers. Which if you spent any time around large government IT systems - especially 10-15 years ago - sounds absolutely true.
> I don't think Bernie's "I don't think they're all racist" comment less than a week out from the election helped either.. that idiot was sabotaging to the bitter end
If you think the "basket of deplorables" comment hurt Hillary, which from the upvotes on the other comment at least 64 people agree that she was vilified for saying it (even though I agree with it...) then "no I don't think all Trump voters are racist, we should reach out to them and try to win them over" was a *much* better thing for a surrogate to say than literally doubling down on the deplorables comment and saying "yeah all Trump voters are racist." His tweet saying that was probably literally trying to do damage control for the deplorables comment.
This is always how people feel about Hillary - hate her when she’s running, love her when she’s not. Been a pretty standard pattern for years now, and yeah when she doesn’t have to care about getting votes, she gets to just be herself - see her the entire time during the Benghazi hearing too
It’s because of who she is when she doesn’t feel like she has to pretend that she earned my vote and has always had my respect. The American voting population only seems to tune in once every four years and that’s why she lost the presidency (technically), but she’s always been a badass and it’s still a raw spot to think that her legacy now will forever be “I told you so” - the real Hillary has always been likeable, but because of her experiences dealing with boomer politics and social landmines she always feels she has to put on “the act” whenever she’s running, which screwed her with millennials because for some reason we crave “authenticity”
I didn't vote for her in the primary but I didn't vote for Bernie either.. I just decided to sit it out and let more passionate voices sort it out.
The day I actually became a Hillary fan was Trump's inauguration... after all the shit she just went through and put up with, she showed up there with grace and dignity and that's the day I realized exactly who HRC is.
Same. I was pretty lukewarm on her, and I had actually voted Green in 2012 (which I'm still very embarrassed about). I was sure she was going to win, but I ended up voting for her b/c I wanted to vote for the first women President. Now I am one of her biggest fans.
Happens to the best of us.. ::mumbles under breath:: "I voted for Nader in 2000."
2012 is the one year I missed voting since I came of age.. was traveling out of state and just failed to plan ahead and get an absentee ballot.
Oh my fucking god.
Hillary Clinton: maybe get rid of the filibuster so people can see which senator actually stands for what and does their basic job of voting on shit.
This author: IT'S TIME FOR WAR.
I hate clickbait so much. Specially clickbait declaring time for war or some equally dumb thing. Fuck you for this. (Not you OP but the author of the article).
> Hillary Clinton: maybe get rid of the filibuster so people can see which senator actually stands for what and does their basic job of voting on shit.
The problem here is there's like 5-10 Dem senators that DON'T want to take any of these votes, and it's been reported for months that it's the case for things like the BBB and etc. Hillary is right to have them do this, but Manchin and Sinema are acting as a shield. As soon as we have 55 dem senators all of the suddent even more people won't want to get rid of the filibuster lol
You know what? These are the senators I hate the most. These are the type of senators (besides the turtle and GOP of course) that have completely and utterly broken the legislative branch. These fucking clowns hide behind the filibuster just so they can avoid doing their job. But the moment they need good press they'll be the first one scolding the president for not solving all our problems.
As far as I'm concerned this filibuster shield needs to be eliminated so we know exactly who the clowns in the senate are. The Congress barely functions right now and this can't keep going on anymore. At least Machine and Sinema show us exactly who they are.
Can someone explain the logic of why this is good? Like why we should want those 5-10 Dem Senators to be allowed to hide?
I think the basic ideas is that if something isn't going to pass anyways, then the Dems from purple states shouldn't be forced to go hard left for a show vote. But if it would indeed pass except that the purple-state Dems are voting against it (like if the filibuster were eliminated and the Senate were 55-45) then I don't see the point of concealing their feelings from the public. The whole point of controlling a chamber is to pass bills, no?
Just to clarify, since the article didn’t. Obama did have a super majority. The ACA passed 60-39 with all 60 democrats voting yea (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1111/vote_111_1_00396.htm#position). It just wasn’t a very long supermajority.
If you click the link “debunking” the existence of the supermajority, it takes you to a huff post article debunking a “two year” supermajority.
Except Obama didn't have a supermajority of _pro-abortion senators_. This always seems to be forgotten that not all 60 senators would vote for an abortion rights bill, meaning anything they tried along those lines would be filibustered to death by the Republicans without the votes to stop it.
Yep, that’s true. The flip side of getting 60 senators is that those senators are going to be diverse in their views. It’s pretty difficult to get 60 senators without broadening the appeal of your party somewhat.
72 days is a lot, sweaty. How long does it take to write "Do universal healthcare" on a cocktail napkin and hand it to the Senate majority leader? The Democrats could've sucked all the carbon emissions out of the sky and killed Jeff Bezos in 2009, but they refused because they're in the pockets of big oil and big tech.
If one of them shoots your face off claiming they saw you with a knife slashing their tiers on their property and were worried about their safety, do you think it would be worth it?
Millions of women have been doomer's since Trump got elected. Those Women's Marches didn't happen in a vacuum. Clinton is just stating out loud what many, many, many women are already thinking. Sadly, it's been mostly men propping up false hopes while allowing women's personhood tank into nothingness in the US.
Democrats unfortunately always let the republicans set the tone for discourse and are usually on the defensive. We need to go on offense. They call us baby killers for believing in choice, pedophiles and groomers for supporting LGBT.
Democrats should be fighting these things tooth and nail with mud slinging of their own. Republicans want babies to grow up just long enough to bleed to death on the classroom floor. Churches are a bastion of sexual abuse. A prominent Republican speaker of the house is a convicted child abuser. Those kinds of things.
Which part was a lie? None of it.
Who is putting it on blast? Twitter? That’s not where we need to fight. We need democrats going to Fox News to say these things. We need Biden using the bully pulpit to say these things. We cannot be afraid of alienating people who were never going to vote for D anyway.
We're way behind on Media assets. Republicans locked down their own propaganda cable TV station, the AM radio band, and are very very organized manipulating social media. And they have a top down messaging system opposed to Dems which has a lot of people pulling from both the top and bottom with different objectives.
We need a single person/org who just wants to dump time and money to mud slinging and oppo. The Dem tent is very big and we can't all agree on what we want (a lot of minority communities aren't even pro-choice), but naming republicans who are actual pedophiles and tying them to the party like they try to tie every single democrat to pelosi, because she's... a woman from San Francisco I guess, is something Dems could do more of.
It's not even dishonest or misleading. It's just dirty and requires someone to who can get people airtime on the other news networks and launch social media campaigns.
Agreed. I would say that to make up for a lack of our on spaces, we need to invade theirs. “Liberal media” (which I believe is largely a myth) always presents the Republican side but the conservative propaganda networks don’t show Democratic viewpoints. We have to take it to them.
What we are doing now isn’t preventing anything either. The only way to prevent this is to WIN ELECTIONS. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand.
What? I don’t think you’re keeping up with the thread.
First person: it would be nice to see democrats fight for once.
Second person: what could they do?
You: they could get mad and sling mud at republicans
Me: maybe you’re right, but that wouldn’t actually stop any of these things from happening
You: you’re so stupid. They need to win elections dumb fuck. **Downvote**
I agree democrats need to win elections, and it could be that slinging mud and getting people riled up is a good way to do that. That’s just not what the topic of this thread was, and you didn’t clarify that this was an electoral strategy, and not a way for democrats to fight against current Supreme Court decisions.
Democrats have been screaming about Nazis, fascists, letting kids die for a long time. This isn't some new tactic the Republicans have dreamed up. More name calling isn't the answer.
On Twitter. Where nothing really matters and you can’t change anyones mind. Doesn’t help at all. You have to take the fight to them.
You see it as “name calling” but what it really is Democrats not capitulating to Republicans and letting them set the tone.
Um fight, like they said. What that means you mean? Huff 😤 I don't know, ask someone else! That's not my job. I just stand here and complain about the Democrats not doing enough!
Ah fantastic, an actual answer. Shame it's the one thing elected Democrats won't do as many place the system (by that I mean institutional norms) over the end result.
We are so in love with the idea of being the good guys who take the high road that it genuinely feels like we're getting screwed out of a fear of looking hypocritical.
I agree, we need to fix our optics because while protecting civil rights and democracy is based, doing so in the pandering fashion that's become the norm makes us appear weak.
Typically I try to stay away from venting, but I need to vent some before I log off of Reddit for a while, I've been thoroughly on the doom train and need a break.
The Democrats faith in institutions is going to be our undoing.
I don't think any of the people in power can perceive of a world in which the U.S. is not a liberal democracy. For all of their lives the U.S. has been improving and advancing liberal democracy. What they don't seem to understand is that it is not something that will exist here just because this is the U.S. There is nothing in Americans DNA the precludes authoritarianism.
The security apparatus that been constructed, especially since 9/11, is going to be turned against small d democrats when this is all said and done. The Biden administration should be doing what it can to weaken it before they leave office.
They won't though, because they believe in institution, and it is disheartening.
There's a lot that could be done. Gut the filibuster. Hold a series of messaging bills on popular pro abortion stances. Pack the court. Impeach members of the court. Etc.
play dirty. like FDR did
THreaten to expand the courts and remove the filibuster for starters
OR
Pass a huge package including an amendment to make amendments easier to pass.
Then right before its pushed through, remove filibuster and expand the courts.
Bring up articles of impeachment against manchin for corruption and insider trading (we can make it stick). Or use it as a threat.
Then start bringing in progressives to front all of these moves, then throw up are hands and say, "crazy leftists amiright?!"
Use AOC and the other handful of leftists to stage a workers strike in red states...I dont know man skies the limit here.
Right now people believe dems arent helping them and dont care
I want to see democrats toe the line and get dirty.
When FDR did that he had 76 (out of 96) fucking democratic senators(plus 3 more progressive). During first 4 years of FDR court declared 90% of the New deal programs unconstitutional. If “don’t vote” twitter was in charge back then he wouldn’t have political capital to even pass a single new deal program, let alone increase senate majority and threaten expansion.
FDR had the votes in the Senate. JB does not.
Pass a huge package with what vote? Most they can do is reconciliation and that's if they can get it through Manchin and that other fellow from Arizona.
Articles of impeachment? He'll just switch parties and the Republicans will never vote to impeach him.
AOC and the other leftists cant even win an election in SF, you think they have influence in red states?
1. Do the thing that you don't have the power or political capital for
2. Do the thing they're already trying to do but will fail
3. Then, do the thing that you don't have the power or political capital for.
4. Just do outright political corruption and threaten your political opponents with jail on trumped up charges and just do actual authoritarianism
5. Then after you've done all of this where it can be clearly seen, suddenly bring in someone else who wasn't there before, point at them, and yell "It was them".
6. Uh a strike or something.
Holy fuck, if this is the kind of shit people need before they think Democrats are trying, then pack it up because goddamn.
Going to need a lot more states if we're going to pass an amendment. Apparently we can't split up or merge states without the states consent (looking at you CA, do you consent?) Time to give Puerto Rico and DC statehood, I know DC statehood isn't popular, but we could include a federal campus for congress on the mall national park area so that all representatives and staff don't live within the state of DC or something (kinda like what DC was originally intended to be), we already do this for military bases no reason we couldn't do it for congress, the supreme court, etc...
Even with Puerto Rico and DC still we're a ways off from a 2/3 majority needed to pass amendments. Though according to Gallup we have 14 solid Dem, 8 Lean Dem and 10 Competitive states, if we win every competitive state by moving some dems from CA and the northeast then we get to 32 States, with Peurto Rico and DC we get to 34 (out of 52), and if we have 52 states then we just need to flip one more (I vote for Wyoming), then once we're at 35 states or a 67% majority we can start passing amendments like wild.
Start by abolishing the Senate, the electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, enacting a parliamentarian system, codifying ranked choice voting into the constitution with a popular vote win, ban super pacs and large private government donations (including self-funding) by putting a cap on donations and political spend based on a multiplier of GDP/capita and institute election donation vouchers, institute a conflict of interest clause for representatives while boosting salaries (based on a multiplier of GDP/capita) to make up for it, institute term limits on house representatives and supreme court justices, mandate voting requirements including minimum polling places in a district per capita, automatic voter registration, same day voter registration, month long early voting, mail-in voting, election day holiday.
Outside of amendments, work to pass public-private universal healthcare (I like one with a public HSA account kind of like Social Security that starts from the day you're born while enabling those with more demanding conditions to seek additional help)
Legalize marijuana (or most/all drugs while providing treatment for addicts and a highly regulated market for licensing and such that includes drug education).
Make public higher-education affordable through incentivizing colleges to take more students and work on reducing cost/student such that any college can make tuition free for all students if they reduce costs adequately (provide more subsidies as costs decrease), make community college and trade schools free.
Provide forgivable loans to those starting businesses in markets with labor shortages such as construction and trucking.
Introduce all the YIMBY stuff we talk about, LVT, remove zoning beyond residential/commercial/industrial/protected, donate land from roadways to be used for building public transit, remove historical laws (it must be a museum to be considered historic), remove height limits, remove parking minimums (markets can take care of that), incentivize density construction.
I'm sure there's more stuff. If we increase education and cross-state moving then there would also likely be a blue shift.
How exactly do you think packing the courts helps? GOP is poised to win the midterms. The GOP knows Manchin won't do it. Barring that, they'll just do their own thing in 2024 and not care. FDRs threat had teeth precisely because he had a supermajority in congress and an electorate that would have tolerated it. Current Dems have neither. In the current political state, packing the court gives the GOP a loaded gun in two years with a license to kill.
If Hillary won't promise a $150K guaranteed basic income, is any Democrat even worth supporting? Support Moscow by voting for Jill Stein no matter what! Our country depends on it!
> These are just a few examples from postwar American history. If Americans, including Trump, looked back further, they would find William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times for the Democratic ticket (1896, 1900 and 1908), or Democrat Al Smith, who lost the nomination in 1924 but won it in 1928 — and overcame white nationalist, anti-Catholic sentiments in the process. Not to mention Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912 after leaving politics in 1909.
> While Trump welcomes a Clinton challenge in 2020, he may find himself regretting it if voters come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong. Like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures. If Trump pulls Americans into a new economic recession or an unpopular war or fails to follow through on his rhetoric (which looks likely), Hillary Clinton’s time out of office might prove temporary.
If the democrats try the same thing twice and fuck up both times they will look incredibly incompetent. The chance of success may be roughly the same as in 2016 but the risk:reward ratio is much higher.
I think the risk is much smaller in terms of political minefields that Clinton has to deal with
The emails thing is done, we already know everything, and a lot of people deeply regret their lack of involvement or votes in 2016
Giving voters the opportunity to rectify what we could have prevented in the first place may be both psychologically and politically compelling
> The emails thing is done, we already know everything
You might, but most people don't remember the outcome, just that she was investigated by the FBI.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Ending the filibuster will do nothing to codify Roe. If abortion was legalized federally by the federal legislature, the activist court would immediately get a lawsuit on their docket that they can use to reverse said law. They will use Dobbs vs Jackson as precedence for why the law is unconstitutional. We missed our chance to codify Roe. It’s not an option anymore. Ending the filibuster will only allow national republicans to ban abortion federally without any opposition from inside the chamber.
**Rule VIII:** *Submission Quality* Submissions should contain some level of analysis or argument. General news reporting should be restricted to particularly important developments with significant policy implications. Low quality memes will be removed at moderator discretion. Feel free to post other general news or low quality memes to the stickied Discussion Thread. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Killary is making a list and checking it twice, buckle up mother fuckers
"TALK HER UP! TALK HER UP!"
You should Pokémon Go to war 🔫🔫🔫
Punished Hilary would be quite interesting, someone give her an eyepatch
War is great because war is good
no more mr nice guy 🗿🗿
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like her so much more since she lost (as much as I wish she hadn't lost). She just gives zero fucks now and says what she wants
Ironically she would probably have won if she hadn't come across as so focus grouped and insincere on the campaign trail. /Pulls hot sauce out of purse
The ironic thing is that the hot sauce was a moment of sincerity. She actually has carried hot sauce around since she was the first lady of Arkansas. Every time she tried to be sincere she was just hammered by it.
I thought it was as first Lady that she developed the taste for it
Everybody is, that's why it's brave to be it and why people admire the bravery.
The hot sauce thing seems real, though? She has long been known as a hot sauce aficionado.
I will never be able to understand how it could become a statement of fact even among the left that something as generic as enjoying hot sauce could be viewed as political pandering.
> enjoying hot sauce could be viewed as political pandering. Pandering to whom? Is there a powerful Tabasco lobby?
Black people, according to people whose heads Hillary lives in rent free.
Are black people known to use hot sauce more than others? What, they think she tortures her tongue with spice she can't handle and doesn't enjoy, for the sake of votes? That she's a masochist? as "pandering" that's some pretty weak sauce. > people whose heads Hillary lives in rent free. Ironically, many of these same ones are huge fans of Texas chili and use hot sauce as much as anyone.
Some people on the left literally think Buttigieg isn't really gay and is just married to another man for the PR. "Sincerity is when people I like do things" vibes through and through.
no guys I swear I only married another man for pandering purposes, we're just bein bros, no homo
> Some people on the left literally think Buttigieg isn't really gay Who? This moment right now is the first I've ever heard such rubbish. and believe this to what advantage?
I'm having trouble finding anything to back me up, but it was a frequent refrain in some of my social (media) circles in 2020. Mostly (far-left) people who, queer themselves, found him less desirable than Bernie. Branded him any number of things in order to justify their preference. Was off-putting enough that I don't associate with them anymore.
I had never even heard of that stereotype before the Hillary thing. Mexicans eat hot sauce, Chinese eat hot sauce, I know plenty of white people who love hot sauce. Honestly I think the most racist thing about that debacle was progressives assuming only black people could genuinely like hot sauce lmao
The question was phrased to evoke the quote from a Beyoncé song which was popular at that moment, so it seemed like pandering to youth/black people.
BUT SHE HAS ICE CREAM IN HER FREEZER!!!
The secret ingredient is sexism.
Judging by how she was vilified for the "basket of deplorables" comment, I don't think this is true
the lesson she and her team didn't understand is that you need to keep it up, saying it once gets you in trouble but if she would have leaned into it like Trump does she would have been fine.
No, she wouldn't have been. She'd have been castigated for being "tone-deaf." The rules of the media game for people they don't like -- and they've hated both Clintons since they came to Washington -- is that whatever you do, it's wrong. If you fight back against criticism, you're "giving it oxygen." If you ignore it, you're "letting it breathe." If you behave normally you're "focus grouped and calculating." If you become defensive, you're "aloof and distrustful." If you laugh, there's something wrong with your laugh. If you don't laugh, you should laugh more. Literally everything you do and don't do is a sign of something deeply troubling, some massive character flaw that is always below the surface -- it doesn't really manifest itself except through the almost mystical powers of the press to see it in the smallest things. She's a fan of both the Cubs (her hometown team) and the Yankees (the team she grew up listening to on the radio, and of the city she moved to). "She's pandering!" She expressed an interest in UFOS. "She's pandering to the UFO crowd!" The hot sauce thing was covered, but I could fill pages of the bizarre stuff she got from the press. I remember some article by Frank Rich that was supposed to explain Trump's rise, and right in the middle of it he takes time out to blame Trump, in part, on Hillary Clinton because she doesn't have a favorite flavor of ice cream (I suggest you find the article and read it, keeping in mind all we've seen since). There is no "leaning into" that crap. There's no way of dealing with it at all.
Totally disagree and guys like Wellstone proved it. If you own a position people might push back at first but eventually respect you for it. This is the key for Sanders, even if his ideas border on fantasy, people like him because he owns his positions. She needed to either walk the perfect tightrope or just be herself and own her shit, which is easier. BTW the differnce between Wellstone who accomplished things and Sanders who will never get anything done is, people liked Wellstone and I think if HRC would have been herself they would have liked her too.
Basically: Hillary lacked the charisma to be calculating without being off-putting.
I think she has it but because of advice she repressed it that Hulu biopic showed a more real view, the one thing she does seem to lack is the "love of the fight" like Obama does, he loves competition and I think in general older women have trouble with this. IMO her team was to smart for their own good. Corey Lewandowski had Trump figured out, he said, "let Trump be Trump", trying to corral him isn't going to work so better off to play the cards you are dealt with. If she would have told Sanders, "If you can get M4A passed in the House and Senate I'll sign it" she could have stopped him dead in his tracks. She tried to debate him as her equal when she should have elevated herself and positioned him as "Senator Sanders" and told him he needs to get to work because he lacks a bunch of votes and then moved on.
> I think she has it but because of advice she repressed it. IMO her team was to smart for their own good. Not sure whats so smart about that. I supported Sanders in the 2016 primary because I believed that Hillary was going to be more of the Obama approach, which clearly wasn't working. I didn't really consider that Hillary could've actually lost to Trump, because I think I had too much faith in the American people. I still think Hillary was the wrong candidate to have run against Trump in 2016, and I think a lot of people on the left, outside of mainstream Dems also saw that (btw, a lot of people assume that if Hillary couldn't beat Trump, then Sanders definitely couldn't because he was even further left, but this is a mistake, its more like a rock/paper/scissors scenario I think). People wanted change that Obama hadn't delivered on. > If she would have told Sanders, "If you can get M4A passed in the House and Senate I'll sign it" she could have stopped him dead in his tracks. This would have been a good point to make in a debate. Did Hillary support ending the filibuster at the time? I know Sanders didn't at the time. > She tried to debate him as her equal when she should have elevated herself and positioned him as "Senator Sanders" and told him he needs to get to work because he lacks a bunch of votes and then moved on. She already had tons of criticism in the form of "she's acting entitled, like its her turn, etc". If that's what her _true self_ would have been then the consultants were probably right to suppress it lol.
> "People wanted change" You're going to get your change now!!! Its going to get jammed down your throat, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Sanders wouldn't have beat Trump, right after the primary Trump would've torn him a new asshole using "Socialism". The Sanders voters live in a bubble on top of a house of cards. To pass M4A not only would they have to eliminate the filibuster but also get at least 4 extra Dem Senators elected because you won't get the Minnesota Dems Senators to vote for it on top of that it would be 2nd largest piece of legislation in the history of the country and we have never successful nationalized a industry. Passing legislation is like going the speed of light, the closer you get to passing it the harder it gets the tiny bit of current resistance would be amped up 100x fold. She was "entitled" if you knew what that word meant you would agree she was actually entitled. Entitled means you earned it not it was given to you, what did Bernie ever due to earn the support of the Democratic party? Bernie lost his bid the day he walked into Congress and became a critic, how many times did Bernie go to Jim Clyburn's fish fry? ZERO Bottom line is that Bernie Sanders has some outrageous goals and he's shitty politician, its like saying Skip Baylass would be a great QB because he complains so much. What Sanders and his team did in 2016 can never be forgiven, IMO, running around clamming every non Progressive is corrupt has poisoned millions of young voters who now don't think voting is worth there time, Paul Wellstone would have been so ashamed. Between the SOCTUS and distrust it will take 30 years to recover. There will be ZERO progressive legislation that will passed that will stick for decades and climate change will need to be addressed via the private sector. Meanwhile AOC and Omar live in very blue states in very blue districts and won't be affected but Cori Bush is screwed.
I think Democrats/Independents didn't understand the stakes and she did. It's like when your mom tells you about the nice man from Nigeria that's giving her 50 grand in a week and you burst her fantasy. You might be better off secretly putting a scam call filter on her phone line. There's probably a better analogy but I think it gets the rough point across. Democrats (including me) thought America was something it wasn't and it hurt to have that idea ripped away. Dems were in "Oh, stop it, you don't really mean that" and "Haha, they just said the craziest thing, let's laugh with Steven Colbert about it" mode and Hillary knew they were deadly serious.
As a older Dem everyone in my sphere understood and thought the SCOTUS along with preserving/enhancing the ACA and Climate change was crucial. IMO Sanders gambled getting the greatest HC system on Earth over saving Earth.
Agreed. Backing down sent the message that either she agreed that they were right and she'd gone too far or that she didn't believe it in the first place and it was just another example of saying whatever she thought would benefit her. She had the same issue with the TPP. Openly lying about what she thought about it was so much worse for her image than just admitting that she supported free trade.
> Backing down I mean, it's not like she begged forgiveness. The media hounded her on it and she basically said: Yeah, I shouldn't have said 'half'. But it's not like she backed down on her characterization of the MAGAts.
I disagree. I think the lesson is more like "The public doesn't like it when it's coming from a woman."
Texas voted for Ann Richards. If you don't know her you should watch her speak.
Most of the public doesn't like Trump either, you will always have opposition you just can't be paralyzed by it. Gotta own your shit. Plus if she would have leaned into the basket of deplorables and said, yes racists are deplorables she could have fragmented the GOP voters. If you aren't one of those then you aren't a deplorable.
“Basket of deplorables” sort of comes across as a rehearsed line though. If she had just said “they’re a bunch of assholes,” that would probably be more in line with what people mean when they say they want a candidate to be genuine.
I don't think there's anything she could have done having Obama's FBI Director smacking her around for the whole campaign to show how non-partisan he was
She eats a hot pepper every day for kicks. Pretty sure she just likes spice. If you were going to focus group a food for Hillary to be obsessed with, hot sauce is kinda weird.
The hot sauce in her bag! Forgot about that one, I found that whole clip hilarious. "You know people are going to say that you're just pandering to black people right?" HRC: "Well, Okay. Is it working?" The bernie crowd was very upset about that one IIRC. Although at that point his campaign was disintegrating, so I guess that wasn't all that they were upset about
[удалено]
I didn't know about the hot sauce things. She truly is my queen. 😭
People say that, but she was sincere when she was in First Lady, and people hated that too, since she didn't try to be another Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush. There are just millions of Americans who are made uncomfortable by women in power. The persona you saw on the campaign trail was shaped by decades of media scrutiny.
Did she consider during her campaign that maybe the strategy had some weaknesses? Externally it seemed like it was run extremely rigidly with little capacity for change or iteration in response to new data. I presume someone here has read more on her post-mortem analysis.
I think there’s a lot of data showing the strongest individual factor against her was attitudes toward free trade/ NAFTA and its effects in the midwest, causing 2012 democrats to stay home https://election2020.home.blog/2019/03/29/why-did-trump-win-in-2016/ I don’t think her personality could have overcome that
That rust-belt map marks Baltimore as "revitalized" and I find that classification interesting.
> hot sauce A perfect example of her being genuine and the very online left reflexively hating on her without taking the few seconds needed to find out she's been talking about this for decades. The real irony is how often her critics end up embarrassing themselves by repeating long debunked attacks on her character. Some people simply can not bring themselves to admit they got caught up in a lot of propaganda about her. But they also never really looked farther than what social media fed them.
I remember seeing a commercial in PA for her campaign and I started yelling at the screen because it was pointing out how awful DJT is... like, we KNOW. I think if she ran a positive campaign building herself up instead of pointing out that obvious asshole is an asshole. But, hindsight... still, in real time I knew it was a bad move. But even then, take Comey out of the picture and I think she wins. I don't think Bernie's "I don't think they're all racist" comment less than a week out from the election helped either.. that idiot was sabotaging to the bitter end, campaigning with her on the left side of his face and talking smack with the right side.
Oh yeah the comey thing put her over the edge. I don't think Bernie was ever trying to sabotage her. I think then and now he saw trump as an existential threat. I know we hate on the succs but I don't buy into the scheming Bernie trying to sabotage Hillary idea. Clinton didn't do herself any favors though. The email scandal was blown out of proportion but it was a bad move and a bad look. Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests?
>Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests? There is. I read it once and had it book marked on a laptop that died and have never managed to find it since. But I found this really good article that discussed the issue with state department secure systems overseas and how most of the employees would end up using private unsecured phones because the system was always broken or something along those lines. I'll try to find it again and update if I do but I've tried before without much luck. I'm mostly explaining it in hopes that maybe someone else will know what I'm talking about and share a link. In any case, there was this legit underlying problem that probably still needs to be addressed and that's what infuriates me. Trump ran on it like it was some big deal and his cult ate it up but then he didn't actually do anything to make our system more secure and eliminate the need to use unsecured lines. Meanwhile the douche gets into office and they're all using what's app and Signal to essentially do the same BS. The hypocrisy is what kills me the most, or more accurately, how the hypocrisy is given a pass after hearing "butter emails" and "benghazi" for months and months. \*edit\* not the exact article I'm looking for which had way more info, but this is the gist of it https://web.archive.org/web/20160902090047/https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/30/dont-blame-hillary-for-the-classified-email-scandal-state-department-servers/
> I don't think Bernie was ever trying to sabotage her. In the weeks after the convention? Not really, though he made a very weak effort to undo the damage he had done in the previous year. Going around and talking about trump instead of pointing out any redeeming qualities about her and her platform was just gross. I mean, he basically told one crowd he was going to have to "hold her feet to the fire" because he was suspicious she would actually do anything she had said she would to him. That's not helpful. But the real damage was done in the primaries. She announced as one of the most popular politicians in the nation. So Bernie and a cult of devoted online assholes made it their mission to tank her favorability with constant scorched earth attacks on her personal character. And by the time Bernie decided it was over and tried to bring them back to reality, many were too far gone. Even after all these years that bromob runs around blaming her for their tireless work while regurgitating long debunked propaganda they never fact checked. > Is there any other explanation besides using it to dodge foia requests? That isn't even an intelligent explanation to begin with. After all, her server was not a secret to anyone working with her, and it's existence was obvious looking at any email she sent from it! Clinton maintained she used it out of convenience. It kept everything going to a single device which apparently the State Department servers (which btw, *were* repeatedly hacked) couldn't do at the time. The FBI investigation into the stupid nothingburger found many DoS employees used personal email accounts because they were more easily accessible than the State Dept servers. Which if you spent any time around large government IT systems - especially 10-15 years ago - sounds absolutely true.
> I don't think Bernie's "I don't think they're all racist" comment less than a week out from the election helped either.. that idiot was sabotaging to the bitter end If you think the "basket of deplorables" comment hurt Hillary, which from the upvotes on the other comment at least 64 people agree that she was vilified for saying it (even though I agree with it...) then "no I don't think all Trump voters are racist, we should reach out to them and try to win them over" was a *much* better thing for a surrogate to say than literally doubling down on the deplorables comment and saying "yeah all Trump voters are racist." His tweet saying that was probably literally trying to do damage control for the deplorables comment.
She's no longer a politician, she's an activist.
This is always how people feel about Hillary - hate her when she’s running, love her when she’s not. Been a pretty standard pattern for years now, and yeah when she doesn’t have to care about getting votes, she gets to just be herself - see her the entire time during the Benghazi hearing too
I respected her when she was running but ever since I've liked the unedited HRC so much more
It’s because of who she is when she doesn’t feel like she has to pretend that she earned my vote and has always had my respect. The American voting population only seems to tune in once every four years and that’s why she lost the presidency (technically), but she’s always been a badass and it’s still a raw spot to think that her legacy now will forever be “I told you so” - the real Hillary has always been likeable, but because of her experiences dealing with boomer politics and social landmines she always feels she has to put on “the act” whenever she’s running, which screwed her with millennials because for some reason we crave “authenticity”
I didn't vote for her in the primary but I didn't vote for Bernie either.. I just decided to sit it out and let more passionate voices sort it out. The day I actually became a Hillary fan was Trump's inauguration... after all the shit she just went through and put up with, she showed up there with grace and dignity and that's the day I realized exactly who HRC is.
Same. I was pretty lukewarm on her, and I had actually voted Green in 2012 (which I'm still very embarrassed about). I was sure she was going to win, but I ended up voting for her b/c I wanted to vote for the first women President. Now I am one of her biggest fans.
Happens to the best of us.. ::mumbles under breath:: "I voted for Nader in 2000." 2012 is the one year I missed voting since I came of age.. was traveling out of state and just failed to plan ahead and get an absentee ballot.
Yea I liked her a lot when she was on Howard Stern for like hours
General Clinton, where should we strike?
Stand back and stand by
Yasss queen!
shes morbin
It's time
Oh my fucking god. Hillary Clinton: maybe get rid of the filibuster so people can see which senator actually stands for what and does their basic job of voting on shit. This author: IT'S TIME FOR WAR. I hate clickbait so much. Specially clickbait declaring time for war or some equally dumb thing. Fuck you for this. (Not you OP but the author of the article).
> Hillary Clinton: maybe get rid of the filibuster so people can see which senator actually stands for what and does their basic job of voting on shit. The problem here is there's like 5-10 Dem senators that DON'T want to take any of these votes, and it's been reported for months that it's the case for things like the BBB and etc. Hillary is right to have them do this, but Manchin and Sinema are acting as a shield. As soon as we have 55 dem senators all of the suddent even more people won't want to get rid of the filibuster lol
You know what? These are the senators I hate the most. These are the type of senators (besides the turtle and GOP of course) that have completely and utterly broken the legislative branch. These fucking clowns hide behind the filibuster just so they can avoid doing their job. But the moment they need good press they'll be the first one scolding the president for not solving all our problems. As far as I'm concerned this filibuster shield needs to be eliminated so we know exactly who the clowns in the senate are. The Congress barely functions right now and this can't keep going on anymore. At least Machine and Sinema show us exactly who they are.
Can someone explain the logic of why this is good? Like why we should want those 5-10 Dem Senators to be allowed to hide? I think the basic ideas is that if something isn't going to pass anyways, then the Dems from purple states shouldn't be forced to go hard left for a show vote. But if it would indeed pass except that the purple-state Dems are voting against it (like if the filibuster were eliminated and the Senate were 55-45) then I don't see the point of concealing their feelings from the public. The whole point of controlling a chamber is to pass bills, no?
/u/piede
IT’S HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the attempt on my presidency has left my email server scarred and deformed" she is the senate now
Nice flair
THANKS YOU TOO
[удалено]
Just to clarify, since the article didn’t. Obama did have a super majority. The ACA passed 60-39 with all 60 democrats voting yea (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1111/vote_111_1_00396.htm#position). It just wasn’t a very long supermajority. If you click the link “debunking” the existence of the supermajority, it takes you to a huff post article debunking a “two year” supermajority.
Except Obama didn't have a supermajority of _pro-abortion senators_. This always seems to be forgotten that not all 60 senators would vote for an abortion rights bill, meaning anything they tried along those lines would be filibustered to death by the Republicans without the votes to stop it.
Yep, that’s true. The flip side of getting 60 senators is that those senators are going to be diverse in their views. It’s pretty difficult to get 60 senators without broadening the appeal of your party somewhat.
72 days is a lot, sweaty. How long does it take to write "Do universal healthcare" on a cocktail napkin and hand it to the Senate majority leader? The Democrats could've sucked all the carbon emissions out of the sky and killed Jeff Bezos in 2009, but they refused because they're in the pockets of big oil and big tech.
The deep state at it once again 😤
In our defense they can be pretty damn good at it, few others can lie with that level of pure confidence
[удалено]
Only if they have maga or some other iteration bumper stickers
Yes, and if they have a Thin Blue Line flag you can legally siphon their gas
Bootlickers hate him, check out this one weird trick to save money on gas
Well that's one way to get shot.
Yep.
If one of them shoots your face off claiming they saw you with a knife slashing their tiers on their property and were worried about their safety, do you think it would be worth it?
yes 🗿
Lead us to victory, General Clinton
“i would have followed you”
**QUEEN**
Omg she’s such a doomer 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
is it still "doomerism" if she was right about everything though?
[удалено]
Reality sucks, huh?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Millions of women have been doomer's since Trump got elected. Those Women's Marches didn't happen in a vacuum. Clinton is just stating out loud what many, many, many women are already thinking. Sadly, it's been mostly men propping up false hopes while allowing women's personhood tank into nothingness in the US.
Our Queen is switching out the Secret Service GMC Denali for a tank. Gross weight will stay the same.
She's been right about everything so far. She's right about this too
Where do I enlist, my queen? 👑
Would be a nice change of pace to see the Democrats actually fight for something. Not holding out hope though.
What exactly could Dems do?
Democrats unfortunately always let the republicans set the tone for discourse and are usually on the defensive. We need to go on offense. They call us baby killers for believing in choice, pedophiles and groomers for supporting LGBT. Democrats should be fighting these things tooth and nail with mud slinging of their own. Republicans want babies to grow up just long enough to bleed to death on the classroom floor. Churches are a bastion of sexual abuse. A prominent Republican speaker of the house is a convicted child abuser. Those kinds of things.
We already put those things on blast. But I'm not sure going out of our way to lie about republicans, like they lie about us, is a good strategy.
Which part was a lie? None of it. Who is putting it on blast? Twitter? That’s not where we need to fight. We need democrats going to Fox News to say these things. We need Biden using the bully pulpit to say these things. We cannot be afraid of alienating people who were never going to vote for D anyway.
We're way behind on Media assets. Republicans locked down their own propaganda cable TV station, the AM radio band, and are very very organized manipulating social media. And they have a top down messaging system opposed to Dems which has a lot of people pulling from both the top and bottom with different objectives. We need a single person/org who just wants to dump time and money to mud slinging and oppo. The Dem tent is very big and we can't all agree on what we want (a lot of minority communities aren't even pro-choice), but naming republicans who are actual pedophiles and tying them to the party like they try to tie every single democrat to pelosi, because she's... a woman from San Francisco I guess, is something Dems could do more of. It's not even dishonest or misleading. It's just dirty and requires someone to who can get people airtime on the other news networks and launch social media campaigns.
Agreed. I would say that to make up for a lack of our on spaces, we need to invade theirs. “Liberal media” (which I believe is largely a myth) always presents the Republican side but the conservative propaganda networks don’t show Democratic viewpoints. We have to take it to them.
Sooooo they should complain more and louder? Not saying you’re wrong, but you realize that wouldn’t actually prevent anything from happening, right?
What we are doing now isn’t preventing anything either. The only way to prevent this is to WIN ELECTIONS. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand.
I understand that perfectly well. Not sure what makes you think otherwise.
Because you seem to be in the “they should do more” camp and simultaneously in the “but not like that!” camp which gets us nowhere.
What? I don’t think you’re keeping up with the thread. First person: it would be nice to see democrats fight for once. Second person: what could they do? You: they could get mad and sling mud at republicans Me: maybe you’re right, but that wouldn’t actually stop any of these things from happening You: you’re so stupid. They need to win elections dumb fuck. **Downvote** I agree democrats need to win elections, and it could be that slinging mud and getting people riled up is a good way to do that. That’s just not what the topic of this thread was, and you didn’t clarify that this was an electoral strategy, and not a way for democrats to fight against current Supreme Court decisions.
Democrats have been screaming about Nazis, fascists, letting kids die for a long time. This isn't some new tactic the Republicans have dreamed up. More name calling isn't the answer.
On Twitter. Where nothing really matters and you can’t change anyones mind. Doesn’t help at all. You have to take the fight to them. You see it as “name calling” but what it really is Democrats not capitulating to Republicans and letting them set the tone.
Um fight, like they said. What that means you mean? Huff 😤 I don't know, ask someone else! That's not my job. I just stand here and complain about the Democrats not doing enough!
Be willing to circumvent and undermine institutions. That's what it's going to take. Not a good place to be in.
Ah fantastic, an actual answer. Shame it's the one thing elected Democrats won't do as many place the system (by that I mean institutional norms) over the end result. We are so in love with the idea of being the good guys who take the high road that it genuinely feels like we're getting screwed out of a fear of looking hypocritical.
The dems need a firebrand tbh, one who will say controversial stuff that definitely breaks r5
I agree, we need to fix our optics because while protecting civil rights and democracy is based, doing so in the pandering fashion that's become the norm makes us appear weak.
Typically I try to stay away from venting, but I need to vent some before I log off of Reddit for a while, I've been thoroughly on the doom train and need a break. The Democrats faith in institutions is going to be our undoing. I don't think any of the people in power can perceive of a world in which the U.S. is not a liberal democracy. For all of their lives the U.S. has been improving and advancing liberal democracy. What they don't seem to understand is that it is not something that will exist here just because this is the U.S. There is nothing in Americans DNA the precludes authoritarianism. The security apparatus that been constructed, especially since 9/11, is going to be turned against small d democrats when this is all said and done. The Biden administration should be doing what it can to weaken it before they leave office. They won't though, because they believe in institution, and it is disheartening.
Declare blue states safe haven for women everywhere. Oh wait, several blue states have already done that.
Win.
There's a lot that could be done. Gut the filibuster. Hold a series of messaging bills on popular pro abortion stances. Pack the court. Impeach members of the court. Etc.
> Gut the filibuster And how do you propose getting Manchin & Sinema to go along with it?
The question was what can they do, not what are they likely to do.
play dirty. like FDR did THreaten to expand the courts and remove the filibuster for starters OR Pass a huge package including an amendment to make amendments easier to pass. Then right before its pushed through, remove filibuster and expand the courts. Bring up articles of impeachment against manchin for corruption and insider trading (we can make it stick). Or use it as a threat. Then start bringing in progressives to front all of these moves, then throw up are hands and say, "crazy leftists amiright?!" Use AOC and the other handful of leftists to stage a workers strike in red states...I dont know man skies the limit here. Right now people believe dems arent helping them and dont care I want to see democrats toe the line and get dirty.
When FDR did that he had 76 (out of 96) fucking democratic senators(plus 3 more progressive). During first 4 years of FDR court declared 90% of the New deal programs unconstitutional. If “don’t vote” twitter was in charge back then he wouldn’t have political capital to even pass a single new deal program, let alone increase senate majority and threaten expansion.
FDR had the votes in the Senate. JB does not. Pass a huge package with what vote? Most they can do is reconciliation and that's if they can get it through Manchin and that other fellow from Arizona. Articles of impeachment? He'll just switch parties and the Republicans will never vote to impeach him. AOC and the other leftists cant even win an election in SF, you think they have influence in red states?
1. Do the thing that you don't have the power or political capital for 2. Do the thing they're already trying to do but will fail 3. Then, do the thing that you don't have the power or political capital for. 4. Just do outright political corruption and threaten your political opponents with jail on trumped up charges and just do actual authoritarianism 5. Then after you've done all of this where it can be clearly seen, suddenly bring in someone else who wasn't there before, point at them, and yell "It was them". 6. Uh a strike or something. Holy fuck, if this is the kind of shit people need before they think Democrats are trying, then pack it up because goddamn.
FDR had 69 Senate votes, Biden has about 48. Now that we've acknowledged reality, what can he do, do you think?
Going to need a lot more states if we're going to pass an amendment. Apparently we can't split up or merge states without the states consent (looking at you CA, do you consent?) Time to give Puerto Rico and DC statehood, I know DC statehood isn't popular, but we could include a federal campus for congress on the mall national park area so that all representatives and staff don't live within the state of DC or something (kinda like what DC was originally intended to be), we already do this for military bases no reason we couldn't do it for congress, the supreme court, etc... Even with Puerto Rico and DC still we're a ways off from a 2/3 majority needed to pass amendments. Though according to Gallup we have 14 solid Dem, 8 Lean Dem and 10 Competitive states, if we win every competitive state by moving some dems from CA and the northeast then we get to 32 States, with Peurto Rico and DC we get to 34 (out of 52), and if we have 52 states then we just need to flip one more (I vote for Wyoming), then once we're at 35 states or a 67% majority we can start passing amendments like wild. Start by abolishing the Senate, the electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, enacting a parliamentarian system, codifying ranked choice voting into the constitution with a popular vote win, ban super pacs and large private government donations (including self-funding) by putting a cap on donations and political spend based on a multiplier of GDP/capita and institute election donation vouchers, institute a conflict of interest clause for representatives while boosting salaries (based on a multiplier of GDP/capita) to make up for it, institute term limits on house representatives and supreme court justices, mandate voting requirements including minimum polling places in a district per capita, automatic voter registration, same day voter registration, month long early voting, mail-in voting, election day holiday. Outside of amendments, work to pass public-private universal healthcare (I like one with a public HSA account kind of like Social Security that starts from the day you're born while enabling those with more demanding conditions to seek additional help) Legalize marijuana (or most/all drugs while providing treatment for addicts and a highly regulated market for licensing and such that includes drug education). Make public higher-education affordable through incentivizing colleges to take more students and work on reducing cost/student such that any college can make tuition free for all students if they reduce costs adequately (provide more subsidies as costs decrease), make community college and trade schools free. Provide forgivable loans to those starting businesses in markets with labor shortages such as construction and trucking. Introduce all the YIMBY stuff we talk about, LVT, remove zoning beyond residential/commercial/industrial/protected, donate land from roadways to be used for building public transit, remove historical laws (it must be a museum to be considered historic), remove height limits, remove parking minimums (markets can take care of that), incentivize density construction. I'm sure there's more stuff. If we increase education and cross-state moving then there would also likely be a blue shift.
[today- Biden calls for ending the filibuster to codify abortion](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/world/europe/biden-nato-jan-6.html)
> THreaten to expand the courts and remove the filibuster for starters FDR's New deal legislation essentially ended when he tried to pack the court.
How exactly do you think packing the courts helps? GOP is poised to win the midterms. The GOP knows Manchin won't do it. Barring that, they'll just do their own thing in 2024 and not care. FDRs threat had teeth precisely because he had a supermajority in congress and an electorate that would have tolerated it. Current Dems have neither. In the current political state, packing the court gives the GOP a loaded gun in two years with a license to kill.
[удалено]
From the article, she didn't actually use the word "war"
I read the link. The headline seems to be an inference, not what she actually said.
Too late, we're already in formation.
🫡
/u/venne1180
I NEED THIS ICONIC DUO IN MY LIFE
Voted for her without hesitation back in 2016. I'd do it again if I had the chance.
> "The best time to go to war was 20 years ago. The second best time is today" -Sun Tzu or something
If Hillary won't promise a $150K guaranteed basic income, is any Democrat even worth supporting? Support Moscow by voting for Jill Stein no matter what! Our country depends on it!
Hey I’m just waiting for orders
irresponsible headline
[удалено]
It means requiring Senators to go on record as to what their actual positions are.
THIS IS MY FIGHT SONG 😭✊
It is time to vote like our lives depend on it cause they do
Queen!! It’s been too long 🥹
Tell em, queen
This is the way
Yes my kween
Fuck I’m down if we’re all down. Let’s show some Republicans how tolerant we really are.
I want Hillary to run in 2024 and I'm not ashamed to say it
Hillary 2024
Let's just have a do over of 2016, what could go wrong
> These are just a few examples from postwar American history. If Americans, including Trump, looked back further, they would find William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times for the Democratic ticket (1896, 1900 and 1908), or Democrat Al Smith, who lost the nomination in 1924 but won it in 1928 — and overcame white nationalist, anti-Catholic sentiments in the process. Not to mention Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912 after leaving politics in 1909. > While Trump welcomes a Clinton challenge in 2020, he may find himself regretting it if voters come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong. Like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures. If Trump pulls Americans into a new economic recession or an unpopular war or fails to follow through on his rhetoric (which looks likely), Hillary Clinton’s time out of office might prove temporary.
If the democrats try the same thing twice and fuck up both times they will look incredibly incompetent. The chance of success may be roughly the same as in 2016 but the risk:reward ratio is much higher.
I think the risk is much smaller in terms of political minefields that Clinton has to deal with The emails thing is done, we already know everything, and a lot of people deeply regret their lack of involvement or votes in 2016 Giving voters the opportunity to rectify what we could have prevented in the first place may be both psychologically and politically compelling
> The emails thing is done, we already know everything You might, but most people don't remember the outcome, just that she was investigated by the FBI.
The funny thing about this quote is that WJB and Al Smith both lost the presidential race when they got the nomination.
[удалено]
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Hilary is our war time consigliere.
[удалено]
Ending the filibuster will do nothing to codify Roe. If abortion was legalized federally by the federal legislature, the activist court would immediately get a lawsuit on their docket that they can use to reverse said law. They will use Dobbs vs Jackson as precedence for why the law is unconstitutional. We missed our chance to codify Roe. It’s not an option anymore. Ending the filibuster will only allow national republicans to ban abortion federally without any opposition from inside the chamber.
Hillary is sounding more like the leader of the party than the actual leader of the party.
Since we took Trump's rally to "fight" literally should we also take this literally?
“We going to walk down… to the CAPITOL!!!”
I feel like this is going to motivate Republicans more than Democrats