Trump

[pogo]

It’s almost entirely a Republican fabrication. The two things she is accused at being “so bad” over are Benghazi and e-mail.

The former was certainly a fuck-up but only one of many and not one she was involved in or responsible for. She was Secretary of State at the time, not part of the command structure of US forces in any way. They’ve mostly tried to blame her for hiding what really happened, but there is no evidence of that. There was confusion at the time it happened, that was all. It’s also part of Republicans criticising Democrats for not blaming “Radical Islam”, as if blaming a religion for things would be at all helpful.

The e-mail server at home was a mistake, but a minor one. Others before her had had the same arrangement, including presidents. There is no evidence it led to secrets getting out, or other security breaches. It‘s as much about America’s broken secrecy laws, where far too many even routine things are classified as secret in ways that easily catch people out. It was investigated and she was criticised by the investigator but no crime was committed.

[gumboot]

Yeah but don't forget that she also eats babies and kicks puppies.

[gumboot]

I got a bit curious and did a search, and as far as I can tell the problem is that Hillary retroactively caused the incident by covering it up and making the people involved think it couldn't happen so they wouldn't be prepared for it.

Now how could she have don't that if she wasn't a witch?

[KlaxonCow]

I still have yet to comprehend why Hillary is viewed as "so bad". [...] Its like people have to quickly think up reasons to hate her as they cant remember why that hated her to start with.

I did touch on this - or at least one element of this - earlier in the thread.

Starting with the Clintons - so Hillary caught some of the flak aimed at her Presidential husband too - the Republicans started employing a strategy of constantly attacking Democrats with rumours and negativity.

David Brock used to be a Republican and was actually one of their pawns in this strategy - he'd go on TV shows to push known lies about the Clintons and distort the public's perception of them - but he has since abandoned the Republicans and now confesses that it was all done perfectly knowingly and deliberately as an active Republican campaign strategy:



There were rumours that the Clintons murdered a friend. He actually committed suicide. There were rumours that they did a property scam. Actually, there was nothing underhand about it from the Clintons and they lost money from it.

There were rumours that Bill was smuggling drugs over the Mexican border in a private jet. Yes, that he was doing small time drug smuggling whilst being President of the United States of America. I mean, that one is rather ridiculous. He had access to Airforce One as the President. No-one could ever order that plane down to search it. Why's he pissing about with a small private jet to do this drug smuggling that, well, why would he ever be involved in that in the first place anyway?

This strategy is still going and the rumours remain just as absurd. Obama isn't an American. Obama is a secret Muslim. Obama is a communist, who has a plan to steal all the guns.

(To which I replied to someone who actually believed that: "if Obama had some masterplan to steal all the guns and bring in 'Muslim Communism' - whatever that might be - then, well, he's cutting it a bit fine, isn't he? The election for the new President is in November and they take over in January. He's had 8 years to bring in this gun-less Communist Paradise and he's not yet done anything. If this was his masterplan all along, then he's not very good at implementing his masterplans, clearly".)

It's a sneaky strategy because the idea is to create smoke. Smoke everywhere. Rumours here, negative accusations there. Nothing provable or concrete - because, indeed, it's knowingly a lie they've just made up - but the trick of it all is that if every time Clinton is mentioned, someone appears on TV suggesting that she might be a witch, might have murdered people, might be smuggling drugs, might be a secret Muslim communist, etc. then it just creates those negative associations in your mind. They create smoke, so you think "no smoke without fire" and start believing there's a fire, where there never was any such thing.

Pavlov's dogs in reverse, innit.

If every time you ate a jelly baby, I gave you a nasty electrical shock, then I could slowly train you to recoil - in anticipation of another shock - from merely the mention - the offer - of a jelly baby. "No, no! Not the jelly babies!! The jelly babies are evil!!".

Indeed, that is literally a tactic used - albeit to a much more extreme level - in brainwashing people.

Its like people have to quickly think up reasons to hate her as they cant remember why that hated her to start with.

Which entirely fits because the negative associations happen on a subconscious level.

And then the conscious mind will try to "retrofit" an explanation to those emotions (this is a well-known psychological phenomenon and the conscious is extremely good at making up seemingly rational explanations for our completely irrational emotions).

[pogo]

Their problem now is Trump. He is exactly the wrong person to prosecute such a strategy. Sure he will happily lap up all these dodgy accusations, but he then gets them wrong, or takes them way too far, or simply mixes them up with all his other conspiracy theories. His supporters lap them up but they also lap up the racist, sexist nonsense he spews out. Moderate voters catch a little of it and turn away horrified.

[KlaxonCow]

Indeed, that might be the positive upshot of them ending up with Trump as their Presidential nominee.

Yes, he'd undoubtedly fuck it all up.

In fact, I don't think that Trump was ever on the inside of these strategies (he was never an "establishment" Republican and he's previously given money to Democrats like Hillary, actually, and his popularity is based on him not being on the "inside" of anything) - even though he lead the charge with "Obama is a Kenyan" and "show us your birth certificate" - but rather was just a useful idiot who'd fallen victim to believing these conspiracy theories so much, he got obsessed with proving them.

(Indeed, if he was on the inside of the lie, he'd know it was a lie and, thus, you shouldn't actually demand the birth certificate. Because, as we saw, it does exist and does confirm he was born in Hawaii. A pawn in this strategy would know to simply keep making accusations and rumours and smears, but not go near looking for real evidence. It's a lie. You know it's a lie because you're the one who made up that lie. There is no evidence. You, more than anyone else, realise this. No, if Trump was in on it, then he'd have known to have stopped and stepped back, keeping it as rumour and smoke forever.)

So Trump might, amusingly enough, prove to be an accidental block on these strategies being able to work.

The negative association has to be repeatedly reinforced all the time. He'll say something stupid, go too far or otherwise ruin the whole thing with his idiot mouth.

[Little stoned kiwi]

The problem with Hillary is she's such a good politician. I've never recognised a moment of genuine personality in the media. I wouldn't buy a used car from her without running the plates and having an independent mechanic check it out. It's difficult to gauge what her true motivations are and what she's passionate about.

[pogo]

[funkstar]

You know, with Hillary, the nay-sayer are afraid of taxes, big government, [morality, etc. With the Donald, world peace may be at stake.

This is not a difficult choice, right?

[KlaxonCow]

Fuck me, he's a walking Saturday Night Live skit. Beyond parody, he's a satire of himself.

That face when he realises what he's just said and is hoping desperately that nobody noticed. Priceless.

[pogo]

The problem with Hillary is she's such a good politician. I've never recognised a moment of genuine personality in the media. I wouldn't buy a used car from her without running the plates and having an independent mechanic check it out. It's difficult to gauge what her true motivations are and what she's passionate about.

She is an establishment Democrat which means she stands for all the things they stand for. The easiest way to think of it is she is the same as Obama in this, and will pursue the same goals.

That’s the thing about the Democrats. They are much more like parties here: united around a set of principles, a coalition of particular interests and groups. So you go from one leader to another it does not matter too much. Bernie Sanders was an exception to this but he never came close to winning the primary, and then only did so well because of Clinton’s perceived weaknesses.

It’s Republicans that can’t settle on what they are. There’s the establishment, interested in getting stuff done. Problem is they are closest to donors who just want tax cuts for the rich, which have very limited appeal outside the 1% who would benefit.

And there’s also the Tea Party, which is white, middle America as a political force. They are mistrustful of governments including Republicans in government, but also aren’t fond of big businesses, and their rich owners and managers. They are more socially conservative and religious.

And that’s a gross simplification, as it’s even more fragmented than that. “Tea Party“ candidates have been elected to government such as Congress, but they then become part of “Washington”, in the eyes of ordinary members, and have to work hard (often by not working on anything constructive) to distance themselves from the corrupt workings of government.

So in the primaries there were three sorts of candidates. Establishment ones like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich. Total outsiders with no political experience like Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina. And then Ted Cruz who was in Congress but who had spent his time there opposing everything, including Republicans, to run as an outsider. And that ignores the North/South divide along cultural and religious grounds, which sort of aligns with the Tea Party but not always.

Cruz’s strategy was genius, as he was able to tout his experience and electability at the same time as putting himself forward as the anti-establishment candidate, appealing to the South with his conservative values. He might have won, if it had not been for Trump.

Trump did one better by realising he could ignore all that and just appeal directly to nativist Tea Party types with barely disguised and overtly racist policies. His highly negative campaign turned off as many voters as he gained, but they inspired enthusiasm in enough to give him the largest share of the votes. While Rubio and Cruz fought over Latino voters, Rubio and Bush competed for mainstream support and money, Trump was out on his own with no-one except Carson for company. When Carson folded Trump had no competitors for his voters. By the time other candidates dropped out, to clear the way for e.g. Cruz, it was too late and Trump had already won.

[Little stoned kiwi]

She is an establishment Democrat which means she stands for all the things they stand for. The easiest way to think of it is she is the same as Obama in this, and will pursue the same goals.

That's vague and bland, much like Hillary. It's very unlikely she represents "all things that all Democrats stand for" - though that's the image she tries to present to maximise the number of votes. She can't be like Bernie and strongly stand for certain things.

What are the top three Democrat 'things' that Hillary will passionately fight to implement?

[pogo]

I should have expanded on this earlier, but Bernie was still a Democrat, and not that far away from the mainstream of Democrat thought. He and Clinton believe the same things, pretty much. It‘s just that Clinton is a pragmatic, used to working within the system, achieving results incrementally, by compromising with opponents. Sanders is an idealist, with incredibly ambitious but incredibly unrealistic plans that he would have no hope of achieving.

E.g. one Sanders policy was universal healthcare, like we have in the UK. But it is totally unrealistic, in the US today. It would mean tearing up everything that is in place now, destroying the health insurance industry, radically curtailing healthcare providers’ autonomy and paying them a lot less, rationing healthcare a lot more (as we do here). That’s just too many people to annoy at once, apart from the cost of replacing an insurance funded system. That‘s why Clinton’s approach is more incremental; keep Obamacare (unlike Republicans who plan to destroy it) and improve it by e.g. expanding its coverage.

The most telling fact is in the end Sanders endorsed Clinton, wholeheartedly, at their conference. They are on the same side and stand for the same things. The differences between them are of methods, not principles or beliefs.

[gumboot]

I don't thing it says much at all that Bernie endorsed Hilary. Only that Bernie isn't totally fucking insane, because if he doesn't do that he improves Trump's chances.

There are plenty of Hilary haters who still back her simply because she's not Trump.

[Darkflame]

Thats true.
Although there's not much need to speculate, you can check Hillary's policys directly on her own site. Or use Googles summery of them;
https://www.google.nl/search?q=hilliary+policy

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
vs
https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Judge the overlap yourself. It at least seems clear Sanders have resulted in pushing certain issues onto Hilliary's list.