But he... wasn't. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn't "regular people put Hitler in power", it's "broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists".
broken legislative systems are vulnerable to fascists
Lucky America doesn't have a broken legislative sys... Oh no
At least we have a good judici...
Fuck.
We can rest easy knowing that the judiciary is subject to checks and b…
God damn it.
But i mean.. at least there subject to some level of ethi...
Well fuck all of us.
But we don't have a hoard of fascists frothing at the mouth, waiting for their....
Oh wait
We’re toast
No we aren’t. Antifascism was effective at stopping fascism in the US and UK.
was it?
i always thought that's mostly because german fascists dragged both of those countries into war by attacking them, which caused severe backlash by proxy, and not really antifa being particularly effective in those countries.
explains why the U.S., despite having a large fascist movement at the time, reversed course and turned on fascism as an ideology (in public); they got attacked.
same in Britain; early attacks in the war, plus some lingering resentment from WWI, combined overcoming a push towards fascism...
I'd love to hear/read more about successful antifa movements in the UK/US, but that's what I've always thought/read were the major reasons for failing fascist movements in those countries: other fascists...
it’s “broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists”.
She would know all about that. Bernie was killing Trump in the polls. Hilary was neck and neck with Trump.
The DNC cast their votes for who was going to General. A winner was announced. Everyone started to go to the announcement and for the only time in DNC history, the announcement was rescinded and everyone was broken up into different groups. Hilary staffers were observed scurrying around between groups. Then everyone was forced to vote again. THEN Hilary was declared the candidate going to General.
It was all live tweeted. It was all loudly publicized, but noone seemed to notice. Noone seemed to care.
Of course she is now going to make a historically inaccurate statement that casts actual democracy in a bad light.
That hag needs to stay under her rock.
I mean, there was a court case...
DNC's lawyers used the legal defense that they're a private party and can run anyone they want in the general, and because of that, it doesn't matter if they influence a primary election.
They flat out said primary elections are just a performative act, and the judge agreed with them.
It's their party, their candidate, and they only let the people vote as a courtesy.
Our "free" country has been run by two private institutions interested only in their own popularity for over 150 years.
We lose. Everything.
Which is correct if you look at the history of how primaries came to be. Parties simply nominating someone is exactly what used to happen. The first Presidential primaries started in 1901, and they still don't even happen in every state. Plenty still use the caucus system, where a bunch of insiders (usually local people who have volunteered for the party in some capacity) take off a day from work to decide on a candidate. The caucus system has historically been far more susceptible tampering by powerful interests. It literally was a smoke filled room, and is where that metaphor started.
Primaries aren't some system enshrined in the Constitution or anything. It's just how both parties have evolved over time. The general population gets its say in the election later on. The system now is far more democratic than the one that existed 200 years ago (with the caveat that we don't have to stop with progress here).
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008 if the caucus system was still the norm. The leaders of the party wanted Hillary.
That said, I think this approach would work better if there were more than two viable parties. If you don't like who the Democrats nominated, look the Green Party or Progressives Party or Send Billionaires to Guillotines Party. If they all put a candidate out there selected by party insiders, that's fine, just vote in the general for whomever you think is the best out of a wide range of options. It's far harder for corrupt party insiders to game the system in this scenario--for example, it'd be harder to have a place in all parties and setup the candidates you want so you win no matter what. It's only a problem because we have exactly two parties that matter. Treating multiple parties as private organizations who can nominate whomever they want under any system they want would be fine.
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008
That's not the only thing you just said that I disagree with, it's just an objective fact and it's pretty much what the rest of your comment is based on.
Don't forget that there are many, many appointed superdelegates who each have around 8,000 voting power each.
There were 618 pledges from DNC superdelegates in the 2016 nomination, equaling 4,944,000 voting power (meaning votes equivalent to ~5 million regular voters in the DNC). These are not delegates assigned to states but to specific groups and people in positions in the DNC itself.
For reference, 16,917,853 of the popular vote itself went to Hilary Clinton and 13,210,550 went to Bernie Sanders according to this eye cancer of a website. If all of the DNC superdelegates voted for Bernie Sanders, he would have won the 2016 DNC primaries, even though the DNC voters regardless that the actual regular DNC voters voted for Hilary.
Anyway, I'm only making a point that system was broken.
The DNC did reform this afterwards, in that, if the first ballot doesn't have an absolute majority then superdelegates will cast votes but otherwise, cannot (as a superdelegate).
Nice rundown.
At the end of the day, I think the United States is just too damn big to run this type of system.
Red states are so entrenched in their beliefs and blue states are so entrenched in theirs, there is no way to cap them off with one cohesive federal government.
By design, every advancement is a crucial blow to the other side.
And then the real rub.
We have been at it long enough that there are not 2 parties. There is one mob of selfish egotistical asshats who struggle and toil keep federal office the best place to get richer and more powerful.
We keep calling it a government divided. IT ISNT. They are of one mind, taking a foot but making sure not to take a yard. Giving up a foot but making sure not to lose a yard. And every time the ball moves one half of The mindless masses feel validated, one half of The mindless masses feel violated, and the whole effort had an earmark on page 1672 of 3000 that assraped EVERYONE except the rich and the politician.
My betting money is on the fact that we will crumble like the USSR before I die. No grand civil war two electric Boogaloo. Just a pathetic crumbling.
The difference between US and the USSR is that we don't have a pre USA history/culture to fall back on.
Not sure entirely about that. Nazis were still a party that held up to 44% of seats in the reichstag (before they were all nazi) with like 6 different parties. Hitler wasn't isolated. The population voted for him and his party. Hindenburg didn't like Hitler but essentially passed away at a terrible time and Hitler outplayed Papen who was meant to keep him in check. Hindenburg felt he had to since they had the closest to a majority in the reichstag.
"In the end, the president, who had previously vowed never to let Hitler become chancellor, appointed Hitler to the post at 11:30 am on 30 January 1933, with Papen as vice-chancellor.[91] While Papen's intrigues appeared to have brought Hitler into power, the crucial dynamic was in fact provided by the Nazi Party's electoral support, which made military dictatorship the only alternative to Nazi rule for Hindenburg and his circle. [Sauce]
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the "seizure of power" ("Machtergreifung" in German), because Hitler wasn't simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. "Machtergreifung" is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didn't have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn't that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term "Machtergreifung" was avoided by the Nazis, they used "Machtübernahme" as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But "Machtergreifung" is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in "only" at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system don't quite apply, because it was never Hitler's goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as "Machtübergabe" (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.
You really expect a politician to tell the truth, especially when it comes to history? She and the rest of the US political elite for decades now are just mouthpieces for interest groups, mostly military groups who make money with wars abroad. Together with the media, they sell you wars abroad, while waving any currently popular flag at home for votes. The US elections are so loud, you don't hear the sounds of pain and misery those events create abroad, especially in Middle East.
After the reports of Israeli invasion in Gaza, the first smile I saw in media was that of Hillary. When the wars and killings across northern Africa and Middle East started during the Arab Spring, her smile was the most prominent one for months.
Every time this slime of a human being crawls out of a crack in the wall in Washington somewhere, a war is either being prepared or needs justifying for the american voters. All that with a smile, while the cameras are rolling.
I get it, but this take fucking worries me, dawg. The last time the Democrats played the "I don't have to try and appeal to you because the other guy is Hitler, lol" card, 'Hitler' won. It's even a little on the nose that this is coming from Hillary. I'm worried that they're falling into the same intellectually and politically bankrupt trap as in 2016, that they're aware that they don't have a meaningful platform besides "we're not republicans", and that they've somehow convinced themselves that this is enough. The republicans of 2020 and 22 also had that same absence of platform, absence of appeal, and just trying to coast on party brand, and look where that got them. Shit is on fire, we don't have time for these dumb fuck games, let alone for Trump to win again. C'mon guys, don't fuck this up.
They're always going to fuck up. That's what they do. Most of them belong in retirement communities yet for whatever reason think they have what it takes to run a government. They're disconnected from reality yet expect to appeal to regular people, who have to suffer in the reality they've created?
Expect more shitshows.
The grassroots efforts are the only reason Dems enjoying their recent victories. Hard-working people who want to see progress. We'd be looking at a red Congress if not for them, and I look forward to when the DNC is irrelevant, too.
Grassroots movements have been getting shit on since at least the 70's trying to get people to vote for the lesser of two evil parties. Look where we ended up.
It's crazy to me people keep trying to fix the Democratic party instead of just letting that corrupt tower of shit collapse. You got people like Hillary Clinton at the top. Nothing will ever change there but a little bread and circus here and there.
It's crazy to me people keep trying to fix the Democratic party instead of just letting that corrupt tower of shit collapse.
I agree, but I don't know how we could do that and not essentially hand the election to Republicans. Republicans might be shit, but since at least the Southern Strategy, they've created a reliable voting bloc who vote based on party affiliation, personality, or single issues.
The only way forward I can see is to incrementally change the foundation (from local up), so that toppling the top doesn't have such a dramatic effect.
If you're never willing to lose one election then nothing will change.
The democratic party is just like the republican one extremely rotten from the inside. The people at the top
You see people at the white house quitting left right and center right now, all saying that trying to change the existing system has been a waste of decades of their life and they have just given up on it.
You cannot change a power structure from the bottom if the people at the top have proven to be unwilling for change.
Sure you can. It's already happening. Just look at all the local wins we just had. Even if we have to build something better from the inside out, that's the only way forward, imo.
Local wins sure. At the small scale you can do a shuffle here and there. But at the top there are certain rules such as forced support of israel and they will immediately shut down any dissedence and protest against them.
Maybe this video of the same guy that just quit where he goes in depth about it will provide you more insight.
Completely agree, the DNC is far too corrupt to change from within. We need to let them fail, and fail hard, to drive home the need for a new progressive party. This could happen within one election cycle, but thanks to the extremely dangerous game played by these establishment politicians, that likely means Trump 2.0. We’ve been put in an impossible position but I also think there’s no better time than now.
When she called them deplorables they ate it up. She just needs to not stick her nose in.
yeah, i came here to post that she is not the person to voice this. anyone currently supporting trump isn't going to suddenly switch sides to his opponent in the original race, it actually just weakens the argument.
If she's not going to suck republican voter dick, anything she says, no matter how true right now is only going to do damage. She needs to shut her trap, go back to being irrelevant, and continue to consider herself lucky that she and Bill still never went to jail over Whitewater...
I think even that would just confirm their opinion of her, lol
It’s even a little on the nose that this is coming from Hillary. I’m worried that they’re falling into the same intellectually and politically bankrupt trap as in 2016, that they’re aware that they don’t have a meaningful platform besides “we’re not republicans”, and that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is enough.
The irony is that... progressives absolutely do have a solid platform that people generally support. by people, I'm excluding Hilary's and Biden's Corporate Donors. Sorry, I don't have to respect Citizens United.
It's not an accident. The country is moving left, and the right-wing Democrats are afraid of losing control of the party. They almost did, twice. They don't take the "the other guy is Hitler" rhetoric seriously, themselves. They aren't worried about losing their power if the Republicans win the Whitehouse, or even both branches of Congress, because it's all one big club, and they won't be kicked out, as long as they go along to get along, but they are terrified that a leftist rise will take the reigns of the Democratic party from them, and then they really will be out of power.
The thing those people don't understand is that they think democracy is a goal onto itself, instead of a means to an end. A good chunk of the population would happily get rid of democracy in order to have someone in power 'who can just get stuff done'. Especially since said democracy is ridiculously unresponsive to the will of the people.
Compare the polling on the Gaza conflict compared to what members in the house are saying, for example. Or any other super popular thing (legalising weed, taxing the wealthy, not running a global empire that constantly gets involved in wars,...)
And, for the record, Hillary, Hitler never got over 50% of the vote, it was other, so-called democratic parties that gave him the Chancellor job. They could've created a different governing coalition, but they thought they could control him.
Dems lose because dems gamble. They always pick some rando as VP instead of the person who got the second most votes in the primary. They should’ve gotten rid of the electoral college when Gore lost. They keep running and electing excruciatingly old people who might die or go senile in the middle of everything (Biden, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc.).
They’re gonna fuck it up.
Honestly, I truly believe that both Democratic and Republican politicians benefit from all the bullshittery going on - so of course they’ll actually do nothing to improve the situation for America’s citizens. As long as they get money and they get paid, they’ll say and do whatever the fuck they can, including fucking things up for us.
Probably not much better across the pond, but I am finding myself more and more looking up how to become a UK citizen because at least they have less zany shit going on from what I can tell.
both Democratic and Republican politicians benefit from all the bullshittery going on
They absolutely don't. They just have a very short term view because of reelection cycles and fundraising needs. You'd think their capitalist masters would also realize this increasing polarization and dissatisfaction with the status quo is going to make the line go down, but nobody ever accused economic liberals of actually being aware when the noose was tightening on their necks.
You had me in the first half until you brought up the UK. The UK? Seriously?!
I get this, but at the same time, we are also seeing a ton of fallout from those 4 years that's all currently in the spotlight, which is something we didn't have in 2016. So despite what she is saying, I think a lot of people are actually seeing the mess, and at least some people are switching sides due to it all. Hoping that the mix of everything really does help next year, last night's elections were a good sign of it if you ask me but we know they now have a year to pivot and try to change. Thankfully, most of the people in their own party can't even agree on much either.
Hillary is toxic to the brand. The Democrats would be wise to keep her at arms distance.
It's a little sad because decades of right-wing anti-Hillary propaganda not only proved effective, but it noticeably altered Hillary into this jaded cynic completely lacking in vision or idealism. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but the vast majority of the hate is completely manufactured outrage. That being said it doesn't change what you said being valid.
You can see them trying with AOC, but I suspect it won't yield the same results.
Dude she was a McGovern girl. She has always been an empty husk seeking power and validation
She was a Goldwater Girl, which is orders of magnitude worse. McGovern would have been a massive improvement from Nixon.
There's always been this weird push from her supporters that's anyone who doesn't like her is either a misogynist or fell for propaganda.
They just refuse to admit she has any faults.
Supporters get awful quiet when you ask about her continued defense of her husband's misconduct and alleged sexual assaults. They get down right silent when you ask about her attacking his accusers.
I still believe she was offered the Democratic nomination (in the future) in exchange for not pulling the rug out from under Bill.
Those same people are beginning to do that with Kamala too. Thankfully it's not as widespread yet.
She did a good enough job maligning herself, she didn't need the Republicans to do it for her. The entire DNC primary was a shitshow of Clinton debasing the primaries and showing what she would do for power.
but it noticeably altered Hillary into this jaded cynic completely lacking in vision or idealism
it noticeably altered hillary clinton into hillary clinton
There's a bunch of stances she's taken I view negatively but admit there's nuance.
Then there's DOMA. Anyone on that let it be known their principles for marginalized groups is only "as convenient", which means support of them should also only be as is convenient or useful. She is no longer convenient or useful.
It's weird because I can distinctly remember after 2008 that she was looked on favorably, as secretary of state. People made fun memes about her and found her likeable. Fox News really did a number on her.
She was always the slimiest neoliberal around, and she walked up on stage and said shit like "women supporting women means you have to vote for me"
Hilary was respected because she got stuff done and mostly only spoke to the ownership class. She was never liked, and the more people saw her speak the less people liked her
Let's not forget, she made deals to get the presidency. She burned the trust and local campaign funds of the Democratic party just to lose.
Fox wasn't charitable to her, but chanting "lock her up" didn't ruin her image, she did a great job of that herself who looked deeper than sound bites
Someone couldn't find a photo of her looking less...Palpatine-y?
You're welcome to try, but it might take awhile....
I could try wrestling a grizzly bear too but I find it's better to criticize from a distance.
Give in to your hate. Feel the powah!
I'd like to say Trump would be too stupid to pull off a Hitler but the more I learn about Hitler the more I learn that he was by no means a bright man.
What you mean someone who wraps up their entire identity into hating minorities is a moron?
No, really?
I love how most of the comments here are about how much everyone hates Hillary rather than about what she actually said. I get it that people hate her, but let's be real folks; Trump is the only relevant clear and present danger here. Bitching about Hillary seems pretty pointless at this point.
I hear you. What she said is correct. The thing is, this person is so unlikeable that there's no way she can help. No matter how sharp you are, or how good of an elected official you'll be (and I do think she would have been extremely good at her job if she was elected (I did vote for her)), you must have charisma to be effective in politics.
I honestly believe in my heart that if she paid millions for widespread TV ads with her saying "do not vote for Donald Trump" it would help him.
What she said is correct.
But it's not though. The sentiment is in the right place but she got her facts wrong.
Again, you are focusing on her rather than on what she actually said. That's what I find so telling and unfortunate. Are we really so shallow and politically inept that we can't hear a message simply because we dislike the messenger?
It seems like you are telling me yes, that's exactly how shallow and politically inept we are.
If so, that sucks, especially since you are almost certainly correct.
I am saying that I'm afraid, and I do believe it.
I'm not happy about it either man
Thank you!
Bitching about Hillary is how Trump got elected in the first place.
No, Hillary and the DNC rigging the primary is how trunp got elected in the first place. Bernie would have won.
Rigging the primaries by.... adhering to the popular vote. Got it.
No, by ending the primaries early, and by feeding her debate questions in advance, and 15 other things I've forgotten by now that we saw proof of in her emails.
A Hillary win would have saved the Supreme Court. Now we are on precarious ground. There was no disadvantage in her winning
Let's face it - had she won, things would be way better than they are, and we wouldn't be in the constant fascist danger we are now.
Yep, you can blame the Dems and Clinton herself 100% for that one, given that we know Bernie would have won. She is directly responsible for things being as bad as they are.
given that we know Bernie would have won
You don't know that at all. You didn't see the playbook against him.
True, but to pretend the Democrats didn't actively sabotage their most popular candidate in favor of the "safe" choice.... twice... is a stretch.
I voted for Biden. Will vote again.
Voted for Hilary, too.
Not because I wanted to. Democrats don't seem to want to do much beyond maintain the status quo, at least at the presidential level.
It makes my head spin that people think Bernie lost because he couldn't overcome the most standard political maneuverings of the Democrats, and yet he would somehow overcome the political maneuverings of the Republican party which plays far dirtier than the Democratic party does. Does everyone forget the Bush Campaign spreading rumors that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually an illegitimate Black child from an affair? Or how about when they turned John Kerry's service in Vietnam into a something he only did for fame?
Shut the fuck up you old hag, you and your party got him elected by running ads supporting him and fucking Bernie in the primaries. Why can't she just fucking die already
Yeah, I don't want to see or hear about Hilary Clinton anymore. She pushed her way in and fucking lost to Trump.
The fact that she lost the 2008 primary to Obama (basically unknown at that stage) should've been a clue that she's deeply unpopular and unelectable.
Part of it is because of decades of right wing smears, but part of it is also because she can sound very out of touch at times.
Yep, it fucking sucks that the GOP propaganda machine spent decades convincing people she was Satan in the flesh, but they did, and it was completely bullheaded to think that could be undone. Especially during an election that was clearly taking a populist tone when she had at that point become the face of the establishment for so many. Goddamn it I still can’t believe we’re in this shit timeline
She comes across incredibly inauthentic, like she's playing a character. A lot of people pick up on that easily, which is why it's so easy for people to not like her, regardless of her political positions
Remember when they rigged the primaries and were like “yeah, we can do whatever we want. This isn’t the REAL election yet!” And then they never got court time? Do we really have a choice on who to vote for?
They…literally can, though? The primaries are not part of the election process outlined in the Constitution. They don’t have to have primaries at all.
The DNC and RNC are not government entities, they’re private organizations.
The DNC and RNC are not government entities, they’re private organizations.
Then why the fuck do they get privileged support from the state for their primaries?
The answer is that the process is fucking corrupt, and they need to either actually be treated as the powerless private entities they claim to be (i.e. zero involvement in any elections whatsoever -- primaries shouldn't be a thing, and candidates on the general election ballot shouldn't even have a party listed next to their name) or they need to be held accountable as the de-facto government entities they are.
Or they need to be destroyed entirely outright; that's fine too!
For fuck's sake, even the Republicans can run a fair vote, nobody in the RNC wanted Trump but when they counted the votes, there it was. The DNC couldn't run a vote properly if the UN sat at the polling stations and scrutinized the polls. The massive fuckery that occurred during her "coronation" was obvious and disgusting.
I mean, they can eschew primaries and just appoint whatever candidate they want. But their voters might not like that.
Not that Democrats have ever given a shit what their voters want.
“You know, I hated losing, and I especially hated losing to him because I had seen so many warning signals during the campaign,” Clinton said.
Oh you did? Then maybe you should have fucking campaigned like you were running against a fascist instead of strolling casually to your inevitable coronation.
Maybe a politicker who brags about being mentored by Henry Kissinger, a war-criminal whose record matches that of Heinrich Himmler himself, shouldn't be referencing Hitler.
"matches that of Heinrich Himmler", you mean the head of the SS and one of the main people behind the holocaust?
Have you ever considered that your life, and life in general would be better if you didn't have such absurd and shrill opinions?
Unfortunately, the American education system just kinda gives up teaching history after 1945. Otherwise, you might be more familiar with the US State Department sponsored coups and subsequent genocides in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and the Pacific Rim over the subsequent 40 years.
Kissinger absolutely was administering mass arrests and executions in US client states, from the overthrow of democracies in Iran and Egypt to the massacres of dissidents in Jakarta and Rio de Janeiro and Santiago to the arming of the Khmer Rouge and subsequent bombings in Laos and Cambodia. Say what you will about Himmler, but he only really had the reigns of a mid-sized European industrial power for a decade. Kissinger was instrumental in steering truly nightmarish foreign policies on an international scale for four times as long.
And when you look at how folks like Kerry and Clinton and Blinken consistently turn to the Kissinger playbook to advance US foreign policy in the modern day, he's got even more blood on his hands by proxy than that.
There is one way in which Himmler and Kissinger differs... Himmler at least had the backbone to go and witness the results of his policies in person - specifically, the Babi Yar massacre in Ukraine. Kissinger never did go see for himself the gargantuan atrocities he had "achieved" in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Timor, and Chile.
Oh, I forgot the other way Kissinger and Himmler differs... Himmler was hanged - Kissinger got off scott-free. So there's that.
👏
What like to the front? Do you know of other secretaries of state who went to the front?
Do you know of other secretaries of state who went to the front?
Yeah... they don't really like dirtying themselves with the mess they cause, do they?
so you really REALLY do not understand the brutality of the Holocaust then, and less so the history of the sub-chinease peninsula, and Pinochet couldn't hold a candle to what Himmler did
Trying to hide your hero's crimes behind the Holocaust, are we? Just like your fascist friends over in occupied Palestine?
Then maybe they shouldn't run with a genocide supporting senior citizen as a candidate
I was more caught on Hillary implying she's less popular than Hitler.
You're gonna have to be way more specific, that's literally all of them.
Biden was my last choice in the 2020 primary, because I knew that whoever we chose would run for reelection. We were picking the President for the next 8 years, and anti-Trump conservatives out voted younger left wing voters in the primary. Even if Warren did endorse Bernie, Biden still would have won with the other candidates' endorsements. Without the pandemic, Biden might have lost, while Bernie could have pulled enough support from the base to stand a similar chance as Biden. Trump's response to the pandemic pissed off enough conservatives to give Biden the win, but it also could have given every other Democratic candidate, including Bernie, the win.
However, this doesn't mean Bernie wouldn't have drawbacks as president. The mainstream media would certainly pull a Jeremy Corbyn on Bernie. The base and everyone on Lemmy would stand by him, but he would get torn apart by MMM for doing the progressive things Biden has done, and compared to Trump for even politely disagreeing with mainstream Democrats. If was principled and did everything right, he might pull a good amount of MMM watchers to his side, but many would lap up the propaganda.
Every mistake made by Bernie would cost him dearly, while Biden has the luxury of making way more errors because he was the most conservative candidate in the primaries. Left wing Democrats aren't surprised by Biden's lameness, while conservative Democrats put up with every progressive thing Biden does because every other Democrat would have done the same or worse. Most of the MMM doesn't call Biden radical for doing progressive things, and left wing Biden voters are generally pleased that he has been more left wing than expected.
Biden's biggest failures have been where he sucks in ways you didn't expect he would. Fucking around with Manchin for months and doing nothing on immigration are huge failures. He claimed to be a deal maker, yet he tried to negotiate with someone who never intended to budge. Obama's immigration strategy only lost him support, but Biden seems to think that he could avoid motivating the anti immigration crowd. It didn't work for Obama and Hillary against Trump, and it definitely won't work for him against Trump. The most conservative Democrats would still vote for him if he tried his hardest on immigration, as neoliberals actually like immigration for its economic benefits.
In short, Bernie would have an uphill battle against the media, while Biden's mediocrity shouldn't surprise anyone on the left. 2020 was where Democrats could have gotten someone better, and now we unfortunately have to live with it.
Don't forget rapist who fucked over unions and owes me 600 dollars and finished the wall
And don't forget about how they used covid as nothing but a football and followed Trump's exact plan for it as soon as they were in charge of telling businesses they had to let sick people stay home. Democrats have more covid deaths on their hands than republicans now.
Why are things Hilly say relevant?
She is (or at least one of) the head of a massive informal organization that bridges massive formal organizations like Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, the DNC itself, and so on.
When a president wins an election for example, they have to get their staff from somewhere right? There has to be large numbers of people who can just drop what they're doing based on the outcome of an election and spend the next several years doing that instead. These people staff NGOs in the orbit of the political ruling classes of these parties. Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the country because she can decide who gets the best jobs in these organizations. She can get journalists fired, she can get ambassadors hired. That's her power.
Obama beat her and still had to deal with her to the point of setting her up to run in 2016. She didn't join his organization he became a 'board member' of hers with a small cadre of his own people.
While I'm not her fan she is right and this exactly why the current trend on. The internet of voting 3rd party is dangerous, since the Republican are not playing in good faith and they will not split their vote.
No, she is 100% incorrect. Hitler was not elected. He famously staged a coup d'etat.
She's about 60% incorrect. The nazi party won a majority in the reichstag via normal electoral means before hitler was appointed chancellor by then-president Paul von Hindenburg. It was only after a series of electoral victories and in the anticommunist bloodlust that followed the reichstag fire that a state of emergency was declared and the coup began in earnest. I'll give her that she's mostly wrong because what she literally said is untrue, but because it's an oversimplification of what happened and her broader point, that nazis used electoralism before they used brute force, is true.
What are you talking about Republicans split votes with libertarianism all the time, like constantly
Not really. Libertarian and green turnout has been down since Trump/Hillary. Apparently having two terrible candidates makes everyone a tactical voter.
Can't tell if you were talking about Clinton and Trump or Johnson and Stein. Trump and Stein were the worst two. I'm not convinced shes not a literal Russian plant, and if not she's a useful idiot for sure. Johnson wasn't even as good as his running mate, but that party is a joke anyway.
I don't understand what you mean, we recently saw some of the biggest percentages for libertarians, like the last president vote in 2020, or even 2016, I recall like 3% PR something. Basically the biggest weve seen in a while. I think Democrats are way more likely to not split. Most conservatives I know say they'd vote libertarian if it didn't feel like a throw away vote too
I predicted in the 2016 primaries that if HRC became the Dem nominee, it would be the one thing the Right Wing in America could unify itself against- they hated her then and they still do today; I wonder if she realizes yet how big a gift it is to a splintered, ungovernable mob of political grifters to give it anything they can unify against
It was the most tragic thing when Bernie was pushed aside in favour of H.Clinton, who polled very poorly.
With due respect, it is time for Hillary Clinton to be taken less seriously. Look at who she let win the presidency? A dynamic candidate that could connect with more voters could have flattened Trump. She came across as arrogant and entitled. She is a shrewd and intelligent person, but clearly disconnected from most normal concerns.
Look at who she let win the presidency?
She got more votes - the American voters literally preferred her but the electoral college does mean some votes are effectively worth more than others.
I feel like it would be more useful if she switched sides. Like, instead of reminding us how the dnc keeps fucking us, she could remind the maga kids how close she is with Trump. Maybe they’d like him less by association.
GOP wouldn't take her, sadly. Wonder what would happen if she ran for some 3rd party.
The candidate who delivered Trump his first term, still doubling down on her "deplorables" strategy 7 years later.
But they are deplorables. And you shouldn’t be afraid to say it.
For the love of all that is, that has been, and that will be, get out and vote. Hillary opened her fucking mouth and the last time she did this shit Trump won. Every Democrat should now be rushing to the polls. The cycle is trying to repeat.
She was the candidate with so little enthusiasm of the voters. That still lost to drumpf with almost 3 million more votes...
And with raiding the coffers of down ballot races by misrepresenting a "donation sharing scheme".
People were giving donations to state parties, who gave the vast majority to Hillary.
It didn't just hurt their races, it burnt bridges with lots of people who routinely donated to states and who knows when they'll start again.
She was willing to burn it out down to win because she knew it really was her last chance to be president.
Hell, she's the main reason Trump made it to the general because she was the only one she had a chance at beating.
I think Godwin's Law now dictates that she has already lost the 2024 Presidential Election.
BACK TO THE FORESTS WITH YOU YOU FUCKING GHOUL
Rubs hands together... MUHAHAHAHAHA
I'm not sure how historically accurate that is. I mean, Hitler was appointed, not elected right? NSDAP members were elected, that is how a parliamentary system works.
Also the 1933 German elections were the result of a massive campaign of violence and intimidation against opposition parties and voters. I would hardly call that "duly elected".
Think of it as like: if we had 100x as many Proud Boys in the US, and they were posted at every polling location to decide who gets to vote or not...
In a US style first past the post system the Nazis would have made a clean sweep in July 1932, and wouldn't have had to intimidate anybody
It's complicated but basically the chancellor (not nsdap) selected hitler as a way of trying to give him some power (because nsdap was still the biggest party after the 1932 election) so he's happy but not enough where he could get out of control.
Spoiler alert it went out of control.
Considering her accuracy with him, this should make everyone who cares about the nation worried.
Was she accurate when she instructed Dem media partners to elevate Trump by name with the strategy being that he'd be too extreme for the general election?
Was she accurate when she was taking a preemptive victory lap in Texas on election night 2016?
I was talking about her "deplorables" label, nailed it. Then what she warned the world would happen to his face on stage. I am also not a fan of hers, but giver credit where it is due.
Hitler was never elected lol. He in fact got crushed in the popular election by 20% by Hindenburg.
The Nazi party, however, won the largest number of seats of any party in the Reichstag in 1932, but leftist seats actually had a larger representation, just split between different parties.
This scared the oligarchal industry types enough that they pressured President Hindenburg into appointing Hitler as Chancellor over a less... Contentious candidate. Then a bunch of Nazi shit happened, the "centrists" did what they always do and supported the seizure of power by fascists, and two years later Chancellor Hitler became Chancellor and President Hitler, all without winning a population election.
What she should have said is that Hitler was duly appointed. By a massive fucking loser and coward who probably jerked off thinking about how he helped Germany start and lose two World Wars.
Was waiting for this comment. It's bizarre how politicians are openly wrong and no one ever seems to correct them anymore.
As she defends neo-librealist neo-facism at home and neo-facists in Israel...
She totally doesn't look like a Disney villain in this picture /s
I was thinking she looks like Palpatine's sister or something.
Somehow, she returned.
Ah yes the rampant sexism of American politics is on full display
Acting as if dislike of Hilary is solely due to sexism is either simple-minded ignorance or dismissive of people that aren't your enemy.
I voted for her, but not because I thought she was a good and honest person. I don't think that at all, and would rather Bernie have won the nomination. She was way more qualified and way less of a dangerous wildcard than Trump, so she got my vote but not everyone saw it that way unfortunately.
Among the current Repugs I'd pick Hailey now, but none of them will get my vote in the general.
It's majority sexism against a strong woman with power. The vitriol against her was unmatched. To this day people blame her for hearsay or flat out fabrications of things she supposedly did that other Politicians, namely Trump, were proven guilty of. It's incredible when you look down through the list. The Bush and Trump Administrations both violated the same data handling rules by using private communication mechanisms and commit countless crimes surrounding it; Yet Hillary is the one to get the most criticism despite nothing being covered up. I had a list years back that Trump was guilty of nearly everything the Clintons were accused of. Crazy.
I have had so many conversations with people who insist that they want women in positions of political power who can't name one woman in power that they don't hate. Generally they don't seem to have the same problem with men. So I have long since stopped talking people's assertions in the subject at face value
Ah yes, the rampant sexism of Democrats claiming that the only reason an extremely unlikable woman who cheated in her primary lost is because of sexism.
She beat him by 3 Million votes
She fucking LOST!!! Why the fuck do you think her getting 3 million more votes matters? Bernie would have won. We know this for a fact, by comparing contemporary polling data for both candidates with what actually happened. Trump is 100% the fault of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
is this thumbnail from the exorcist? damn
Please go back to whatever crevice you hide in between elections. You and your ghouls' enabling of fascists like him is what allowed him to win in the first place. Against you.
Also Hitler wasn't 'duly elected', maybe you should ask your beloved mentor Henry Kissinger for history lessons before that piece of shit croaks and makes the world a better place.
Hitler lost, and was later appointed to Chancellor unilaterally. So idk wtf she’s talking about.
I think it's close enough that you can get the point.
No, it's worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.
One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.
I'd need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.
Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn't really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.
I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.
No, it’s not. Being appointed and being elected are fundamentally different. One implies a Democratic process, the other does not.
His party was democratically elected to gain enough power to get appointed. That’s the point.
Middle Finger
This is your hourly reminder that the general election is nothing but a popularity contest and all the real voting power is with the electoral college members who can vote however they like even against their states general pop vote.
Its a puppet show for adults to make the politically minded feel important. Every single canidate who makes it to the ballots is bought and paid for. Vote however you like, or not at all. It doesn't matter, and hasn't mattered for decades.
That isn't really so, faithless electors have never been likely, the occasional faithless elector has had nearly no impact on elections, and a recent (2020 I believe) Supreme Court ruling made it clear that they are not allowed.
There are many issues with the general election. The electoral college is the original gerrymandering set up by our founding white supremacists, and the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system makes sure that general elections only give the public minimal choice between two major party candidates. We desperately need to reform the system.
But voting in the general election remains necessary, to minimize harm, and voting in the primary election is vital, as the only place we get any real chance at a say. If we want to reform the system, dropping out if it is the surest way to fail. It's exactly what the major parties want you to do.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the wreckage from another Trump presidency would be “almost unimaginable” and likened the former president who beat her in the 2016 election to Adolf Hitler.
“Trump is telling us what he intends to do,” Clinton continued.
Clinton’s comments come just days after a poll showed President Biden falling behind Trump in five battleground states, raising concerns among Democrats nationwide about the potential of another Trump win.
The country is reeling from Trump’s policies and “deep divisions that he sowed,” host Sunny Hostin said of Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
Hostin asked Clinton what she thinks would happen if Trump were to be elected again in 2024.
The former first lady said she thinks Trump was somewhat restrained during his tenure as president, and she believes that wouldn’t be the case if he were to be reelected.
The original article contains 318 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Weimar Germany was much more fucked than the US is (right now). The fasc would fail if he tries it, but it'd set the stage for a successful attempt by someone else.
This cretin needs to shut the fuck up before she energizes the maga crowd and those fed up with corporate Dems just so they can send everyone into a tailspin. Why does she think anyone actually even cares about who she endorses? Witch.
But he... wasn't. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn't "regular people put Hitler in power", it's "broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists".
Lucky America doesn't have a broken legislative sys... Oh no
At least we have a good judici...
Fuck.
We can rest easy knowing that the judiciary is subject to checks and b…
God damn it.
But i mean.. at least there subject to some level of ethi...
Well fuck all of us.
But we don't have a hoard of fascists frothing at the mouth, waiting for their....
Oh wait
We’re toast
No we aren’t. Antifascism was effective at stopping fascism in the US and UK.
was it?
i always thought that's mostly because german fascists dragged both of those countries into war by attacking them, which caused severe backlash by proxy, and not really antifa being particularly effective in those countries.
explains why the U.S., despite having a large fascist movement at the time, reversed course and turned on fascism as an ideology (in public); they got attacked.
same in Britain; early attacks in the war, plus some lingering resentment from WWI, combined overcoming a push towards fascism...
I'd love to hear/read more about successful antifa movements in the UK/US, but that's what I've always thought/read were the major reasons for failing fascist movements in those countries: other fascists...
She would know all about that. Bernie was killing Trump in the polls. Hilary was neck and neck with Trump.
The DNC cast their votes for who was going to General. A winner was announced. Everyone started to go to the announcement and for the only time in DNC history, the announcement was rescinded and everyone was broken up into different groups. Hilary staffers were observed scurrying around between groups. Then everyone was forced to vote again. THEN Hilary was declared the candidate going to General.
It was all live tweeted. It was all loudly publicized, but noone seemed to notice. Noone seemed to care.
Of course she is now going to make a historically inaccurate statement that casts actual democracy in a bad light.
That hag needs to stay under her rock.
I mean, there was a court case...
DNC's lawyers used the legal defense that they're a private party and can run anyone they want in the general, and because of that, it doesn't matter if they influence a primary election.
They flat out said primary elections are just a performative act, and the judge agreed with them.
It's their party, their candidate, and they only let the people vote as a courtesy.
Our "free" country has been run by two private institutions interested only in their own popularity for over 150 years.
We lose. Everything.
Which is correct if you look at the history of how primaries came to be. Parties simply nominating someone is exactly what used to happen. The first Presidential primaries started in 1901, and they still don't even happen in every state. Plenty still use the caucus system, where a bunch of insiders (usually local people who have volunteered for the party in some capacity) take off a day from work to decide on a candidate. The caucus system has historically been far more susceptible tampering by powerful interests. It literally was a smoke filled room, and is where that metaphor started.
Primaries aren't some system enshrined in the Constitution or anything. It's just how both parties have evolved over time. The general population gets its say in the election later on. The system now is far more democratic than the one that existed 200 years ago (with the caveat that we don't have to stop with progress here).
Obama would never have gotten the nomination in 2008 if the caucus system was still the norm. The leaders of the party wanted Hillary.
That said, I think this approach would work better if there were more than two viable parties. If you don't like who the Democrats nominated, look the Green Party or Progressives Party or Send Billionaires to Guillotines Party. If they all put a candidate out there selected by party insiders, that's fine, just vote in the general for whomever you think is the best out of a wide range of options. It's far harder for corrupt party insiders to game the system in this scenario--for example, it'd be harder to have a place in all parties and setup the candidates you want so you win no matter what. It's only a problem because we have exactly two parties that matter. Treating multiple parties as private organizations who can nominate whomever they want under any system they want would be fine.
Nope, Obama dominated the cactus states...
https://www.infoplease.com/us/government/elections/campaign-2008-primary-and-caucus-results
That's not the only thing you just said that I disagree with, it's just an objective fact and it's pretty much what the rest of your comment is based on.
Don't forget that there are many, many appointed superdelegates who each have around 8,000 voting power each.
There were 618 pledges from DNC superdelegates in the 2016 nomination, equaling 4,944,000 voting power (meaning votes equivalent to ~5 million regular voters in the DNC). These are not delegates assigned to states but to specific groups and people in positions in the DNC itself.
For reference, 16,917,853 of the popular vote itself went to Hilary Clinton and 13,210,550 went to Bernie Sanders according to this eye cancer of a website. If all of the DNC superdelegates voted for Bernie Sanders, he would have won the 2016 DNC primaries, even though the DNC voters regardless that the actual regular DNC voters voted for Hilary.
Anyway, I'm only making a point that system was broken.
The DNC did reform this afterwards, in that, if the first ballot doesn't have an absolute majority then superdelegates will cast votes but otherwise, cannot (as a superdelegate).
Nice rundown.
At the end of the day, I think the United States is just too damn big to run this type of system.
Red states are so entrenched in their beliefs and blue states are so entrenched in theirs, there is no way to cap them off with one cohesive federal government.
By design, every advancement is a crucial blow to the other side.
And then the real rub.
We have been at it long enough that there are not 2 parties. There is one mob of selfish egotistical asshats who struggle and toil keep federal office the best place to get richer and more powerful.
We keep calling it a government divided. IT ISNT. They are of one mind, taking a foot but making sure not to take a yard. Giving up a foot but making sure not to lose a yard. And every time the ball moves one half of The mindless masses feel validated, one half of The mindless masses feel violated, and the whole effort had an earmark on page 1672 of 3000 that assraped EVERYONE except the rich and the politician.
My betting money is on the fact that we will crumble like the USSR before I die. No grand civil war two electric Boogaloo. Just a pathetic crumbling.
The difference between US and the USSR is that we don't have a pre USA history/culture to fall back on.
Not sure entirely about that. Nazis were still a party that held up to 44% of seats in the reichstag (before they were all nazi) with like 6 different parties. Hitler wasn't isolated. The population voted for him and his party. Hindenburg didn't like Hitler but essentially passed away at a terrible time and Hitler outplayed Papen who was meant to keep him in check. Hindenburg felt he had to since they had the closest to a majority in the reichstag.
Yes, there was support in the population, but there was also a lot of violence to suppress dissent. The historical consensus, as I learned it, is to call it the "seizure of power" ("Machtergreifung" in German), because Hitler wasn't simply voted into power by a majority.
This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. "Machtergreifung" is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.
P.S.: Germany didn't have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn't that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.
That is not correct. Neither according to Wikipedia, not to what I learned in school. The term "Machtergreifung" was avoided by the Nazis, they used "Machtübernahme" as to not alienate their moderate conservative supporters. But "Machtergreifung" is much more fitting, when applying it to the process that was started in January 1933.
And yes, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to appoint him as the head of a coalition government, as the NSDAP had lost votes and came in "only" at around 33%. The normal rules of how to govern in a multi-party system don't quite apply, because it was never Hitler's goal to rule as part of a coalition, having to compromise.
They used both terms as well as "Machtübergabe" (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.
You really expect a politician to tell the truth, especially when it comes to history? She and the rest of the US political elite for decades now are just mouthpieces for interest groups, mostly military groups who make money with wars abroad. Together with the media, they sell you wars abroad, while waving any currently popular flag at home for votes. The US elections are so loud, you don't hear the sounds of pain and misery those events create abroad, especially in Middle East.
After the reports of Israeli invasion in Gaza, the first smile I saw in media was that of Hillary. When the wars and killings across northern Africa and Middle East started during the Arab Spring, her smile was the most prominent one for months.
Every time this slime of a human being crawls out of a crack in the wall in Washington somewhere, a war is either being prepared or needs justifying for the american voters. All that with a smile, while the cameras are rolling.
Manufactured concent is a bitch.
That's super interesting. I did not know that
I get it, but this take fucking worries me, dawg. The last time the Democrats played the "I don't have to try and appeal to you because the other guy is Hitler, lol" card, 'Hitler' won. It's even a little on the nose that this is coming from Hillary. I'm worried that they're falling into the same intellectually and politically bankrupt trap as in 2016, that they're aware that they don't have a meaningful platform besides "we're not republicans", and that they've somehow convinced themselves that this is enough. The republicans of 2020 and 22 also had that same absence of platform, absence of appeal, and just trying to coast on party brand, and look where that got them. Shit is on fire, we don't have time for these dumb fuck games, let alone for Trump to win again. C'mon guys, don't fuck this up.
They're always going to fuck up. That's what they do. Most of them belong in retirement communities yet for whatever reason think they have what it takes to run a government. They're disconnected from reality yet expect to appeal to regular people, who have to suffer in the reality they've created?
Expect more shitshows.
The grassroots efforts are the only reason Dems enjoying their recent victories. Hard-working people who want to see progress. We'd be looking at a red Congress if not for them, and I look forward to when the DNC is irrelevant, too.
Grassroots movements have been getting shit on since at least the 70's trying to get people to vote for the lesser of two evil parties. Look where we ended up.
It's crazy to me people keep trying to fix the Democratic party instead of just letting that corrupt tower of shit collapse. You got people like Hillary Clinton at the top. Nothing will ever change there but a little bread and circus here and there.
I agree, but I don't know how we could do that and not essentially hand the election to Republicans. Republicans might be shit, but since at least the Southern Strategy, they've created a reliable voting bloc who vote based on party affiliation, personality, or single issues.
The only way forward I can see is to incrementally change the foundation (from local up), so that toppling the top doesn't have such a dramatic effect.
If you're never willing to lose one election then nothing will change.
The democratic party is just like the republican one extremely rotten from the inside. The people at the top
You see people at the white house quitting left right and center right now, all saying that trying to change the existing system has been a waste of decades of their life and they have just given up on it.
https://youtu.be/2htDCcqDW0I?si=4C9aXziHgs3CfYkM
You cannot change a power structure from the bottom if the people at the top have proven to be unwilling for change.
Sure you can. It's already happening. Just look at all the local wins we just had. Even if we have to build something better from the inside out, that's the only way forward, imo.
Local wins sure. At the small scale you can do a shuffle here and there. But at the top there are certain rules such as forced support of israel and they will immediately shut down any dissedence and protest against them.
Maybe this video of the same guy that just quit where he goes in depth about it will provide you more insight.
https://youtu.be/1w9fAgaUBrw?si=jf6rUAannj9ZSF01
Completely agree, the DNC is far too corrupt to change from within. We need to let them fail, and fail hard, to drive home the need for a new progressive party. This could happen within one election cycle, but thanks to the extremely dangerous game played by these establishment politicians, that likely means Trump 2.0. We’ve been put in an impossible position but I also think there’s no better time than now.
When she called them deplorables they ate it up. She just needs to not stick her nose in.
yeah, i came here to post that she is not the person to voice this. anyone currently supporting trump isn't going to suddenly switch sides to his opponent in the original race, it actually just weakens the argument.
If she's not going to suck republican voter dick, anything she says, no matter how true right now is only going to do damage. She needs to shut her trap, go back to being irrelevant, and continue to consider herself lucky that she and Bill still never went to jail over Whitewater...
I think even that would just confirm their opinion of her, lol
The irony is that... progressives absolutely do have a solid platform that people generally support. by people, I'm excluding Hilary's and Biden's Corporate Donors. Sorry, I don't have to respect Citizens United.
It's not an accident. The country is moving left, and the right-wing Democrats are afraid of losing control of the party. They almost did, twice. They don't take the "the other guy is Hitler" rhetoric seriously, themselves. They aren't worried about losing their power if the Republicans win the Whitehouse, or even both branches of Congress, because it's all one big club, and they won't be kicked out, as long as they go along to get along, but they are terrified that a leftist rise will take the reigns of the Democratic party from them, and then they really will be out of power.
The thing those people don't understand is that they think democracy is a goal onto itself, instead of a means to an end. A good chunk of the population would happily get rid of democracy in order to have someone in power 'who can just get stuff done'. Especially since said democracy is ridiculously unresponsive to the will of the people.
Compare the polling on the Gaza conflict compared to what members in the house are saying, for example. Or any other super popular thing (legalising weed, taxing the wealthy, not running a global empire that constantly gets involved in wars,...)
And, for the record, Hillary, Hitler never got over 50% of the vote, it was other, so-called democratic parties that gave him the Chancellor job. They could've created a different governing coalition, but they thought they could control him.
Dems lose because dems gamble. They always pick some rando as VP instead of the person who got the second most votes in the primary. They should’ve gotten rid of the electoral college when Gore lost. They keep running and electing excruciatingly old people who might die or go senile in the middle of everything (Biden, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc.).
They’re gonna fuck it up.
Honestly, I truly believe that both Democratic and Republican politicians benefit from all the bullshittery going on - so of course they’ll actually do nothing to improve the situation for America’s citizens. As long as they get money and they get paid, they’ll say and do whatever the fuck they can, including fucking things up for us.
Probably not much better across the pond, but I am finding myself more and more looking up how to become a UK citizen because at least they have less zany shit going on from what I can tell.
They absolutely don't. They just have a very short term view because of reelection cycles and fundraising needs. You'd think their capitalist masters would also realize this increasing polarization and dissatisfaction with the status quo is going to make the line go down, but nobody ever accused economic liberals of actually being aware when the noose was tightening on their necks.
You had me in the first half until you brought up the UK. The UK? Seriously?!
I get this, but at the same time, we are also seeing a ton of fallout from those 4 years that's all currently in the spotlight, which is something we didn't have in 2016. So despite what she is saying, I think a lot of people are actually seeing the mess, and at least some people are switching sides due to it all. Hoping that the mix of everything really does help next year, last night's elections were a good sign of it if you ask me but we know they now have a year to pivot and try to change. Thankfully, most of the people in their own party can't even agree on much either.
Hillary is toxic to the brand. The Democrats would be wise to keep her at arms distance.
It's a little sad because decades of right-wing anti-Hillary propaganda not only proved effective, but it noticeably altered Hillary into this jaded cynic completely lacking in vision or idealism. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but the vast majority of the hate is completely manufactured outrage. That being said it doesn't change what you said being valid.
You can see them trying with AOC, but I suspect it won't yield the same results.
Dude she was a McGovern girl. She has always been an empty husk seeking power and validation
She was a Goldwater Girl, which is orders of magnitude worse. McGovern would have been a massive improvement from Nixon.
There's always been this weird push from her supporters that's anyone who doesn't like her is either a misogynist or fell for propaganda.
They just refuse to admit she has any faults.
Supporters get awful quiet when you ask about her continued defense of her husband's misconduct and alleged sexual assaults. They get down right silent when you ask about her attacking his accusers.
I still believe she was offered the Democratic nomination (in the future) in exchange for not pulling the rug out from under Bill.
Those same people are beginning to do that with Kamala too. Thankfully it's not as widespread yet.
She did a good enough job maligning herself, she didn't need the Republicans to do it for her. The entire DNC primary was a shitshow of Clinton debasing the primaries and showing what she would do for power.
it noticeably altered hillary clinton into hillary clinton
There's a bunch of stances she's taken I view negatively but admit there's nuance.
Then there's DOMA. Anyone on that let it be known their principles for marginalized groups is only "as convenient", which means support of them should also only be as is convenient or useful. She is no longer convenient or useful.
It's weird because I can distinctly remember after 2008 that she was looked on favorably, as secretary of state. People made fun memes about her and found her likeable. Fox News really did a number on her.
She was always the slimiest neoliberal around, and she walked up on stage and said shit like "women supporting women means you have to vote for me"
Hilary was respected because she got stuff done and mostly only spoke to the ownership class. She was never liked, and the more people saw her speak the less people liked her
Let's not forget, she made deals to get the presidency. She burned the trust and local campaign funds of the Democratic party just to lose.
Fox wasn't charitable to her, but chanting "lock her up" didn't ruin her image, she did a great job of that herself who looked deeper than sound bites
Someone couldn't find a photo of her looking less...Palpatine-y?
You're welcome to try, but it might take awhile....
I could try wrestling a grizzly bear too but I find it's better to criticize from a distance.
Give in to your hate. Feel the powah!
I'd like to say Trump would be too stupid to pull off a Hitler but the more I learn about Hitler the more I learn that he was by no means a bright man.
What you mean someone who wraps up their entire identity into hating minorities is a moron?
No, really?
I love how most of the comments here are about how much everyone hates Hillary rather than about what she actually said. I get it that people hate her, but let's be real folks; Trump is the only relevant clear and present danger here. Bitching about Hillary seems pretty pointless at this point.
I hear you. What she said is correct. The thing is, this person is so unlikeable that there's no way she can help. No matter how sharp you are, or how good of an elected official you'll be (and I do think she would have been extremely good at her job if she was elected (I did vote for her)), you must have charisma to be effective in politics.
I honestly believe in my heart that if she paid millions for widespread TV ads with her saying "do not vote for Donald Trump" it would help him.
But it's not though. The sentiment is in the right place but she got her facts wrong.
Again, you are focusing on her rather than on what she actually said. That's what I find so telling and unfortunate. Are we really so shallow and politically inept that we can't hear a message simply because we dislike the messenger?
It seems like you are telling me yes, that's exactly how shallow and politically inept we are.
If so, that sucks, especially since you are almost certainly correct.
I am saying that I'm afraid, and I do believe it.
I'm not happy about it either man
Thank you!
Bitching about Hillary is how Trump got elected in the first place.
No, Hillary and the DNC rigging the primary is how trunp got elected in the first place. Bernie would have won.
Rigging the primaries by.... adhering to the popular vote. Got it.
No, by ending the primaries early, and by feeding her debate questions in advance, and 15 other things I've forgotten by now that we saw proof of in her emails.
A Hillary win would have saved the Supreme Court. Now we are on precarious ground. There was no disadvantage in her winning
Let's face it - had she won, things would be way better than they are, and we wouldn't be in the constant fascist danger we are now.
Yep, you can blame the Dems and Clinton herself 100% for that one, given that we know Bernie would have won. She is directly responsible for things being as bad as they are.
You don't know that at all. You didn't see the playbook against him.
True, but to pretend the Democrats didn't actively sabotage their most popular candidate in favor of the "safe" choice.... twice... is a stretch.
I voted for Biden. Will vote again.
Voted for Hilary, too.
Not because I wanted to. Democrats don't seem to want to do much beyond maintain the status quo, at least at the presidential level.
Bernie was not their most popular candidate. This is an internet Fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Graphical_summary_of_polling
It makes my head spin that people think Bernie lost because he couldn't overcome the most standard political maneuverings of the Democrats, and yet he would somehow overcome the political maneuverings of the Republican party which plays far dirtier than the Democratic party does. Does everyone forget the Bush Campaign spreading rumors that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually an illegitimate Black child from an affair? Or how about when they turned John Kerry's service in Vietnam into a something he only did for fame?
Shut the fuck up you old hag, you and your party got him elected by running ads supporting him and fucking Bernie in the primaries. Why can't she just fucking die already
Yeah, I don't want to see or hear about Hilary Clinton anymore. She pushed her way in and fucking lost to Trump.
The fact that she lost the 2008 primary to Obama (basically unknown at that stage) should've been a clue that she's deeply unpopular and unelectable.
Part of it is because of decades of right wing smears, but part of it is also because she can sound very out of touch at times.
Yep, it fucking sucks that the GOP propaganda machine spent decades convincing people she was Satan in the flesh, but they did, and it was completely bullheaded to think that could be undone. Especially during an election that was clearly taking a populist tone when she had at that point become the face of the establishment for so many. Goddamn it I still can’t believe we’re in this shit timeline
She comes across incredibly inauthentic, like she's playing a character. A lot of people pick up on that easily, which is why it's so easy for people to not like her, regardless of her political positions
Remember when they rigged the primaries and were like “yeah, we can do whatever we want. This isn’t the REAL election yet!” And then they never got court time? Do we really have a choice on who to vote for?
They…literally can, though? The primaries are not part of the election process outlined in the Constitution. They don’t have to have primaries at all.
The DNC and RNC are not government entities, they’re private organizations.
Then why the fuck do they get privileged support from the state for their primaries?
The answer is that the process is fucking corrupt, and they need to either actually be treated as the powerless private entities they claim to be (i.e. zero involvement in any elections whatsoever -- primaries shouldn't be a thing, and candidates on the general election ballot shouldn't even have a party listed next to their name) or they need to be held accountable as the de-facto government entities they are.
Or they need to be destroyed entirely outright; that's fine too!
For fuck's sake, even the Republicans can run a fair vote, nobody in the RNC wanted Trump but when they counted the votes, there it was. The DNC couldn't run a vote properly if the UN sat at the polling stations and scrutinized the polls. The massive fuckery that occurred during her "coronation" was obvious and disgusting.
I mean, they can eschew primaries and just appoint whatever candidate they want. But their voters might not like that.
Not that Democrats have ever given a shit what their voters want.
The best thing Hilary Clinton can do is shut the fuck up and go away
All the negative anti-Hillary comments in this thread aside, please vote responsibly in 2024.
We cannot afford another 2016 situation again.
Tell that to the democratic party that is insisting on putting up a senile old man as their candidate...
Oh you did? Then maybe you should have fucking campaigned like you were running against a fascist instead of strolling casually to your inevitable coronation.
Maybe a politicker who brags about being mentored by Henry Kissinger, a war-criminal whose record matches that of Heinrich Himmler himself, shouldn't be referencing Hitler.
"matches that of Heinrich Himmler", you mean the head of the SS and one of the main people behind the holocaust?
Have you ever considered that your life, and life in general would be better if you didn't have such absurd and shrill opinions?
Unfortunately, the American education system just kinda gives up teaching history after 1945. Otherwise, you might be more familiar with the US State Department sponsored coups and subsequent genocides in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and the Pacific Rim over the subsequent 40 years.
Kissinger absolutely was administering mass arrests and executions in US client states, from the overthrow of democracies in Iran and Egypt to the massacres of dissidents in Jakarta and Rio de Janeiro and Santiago to the arming of the Khmer Rouge and subsequent bombings in Laos and Cambodia. Say what you will about Himmler, but he only really had the reigns of a mid-sized European industrial power for a decade. Kissinger was instrumental in steering truly nightmarish foreign policies on an international scale for four times as long.
And when you look at how folks like Kerry and Clinton and Blinken consistently turn to the Kissinger playbook to advance US foreign policy in the modern day, he's got even more blood on his hands by proxy than that.
There is one way in which Himmler and Kissinger differs... Himmler at least had the backbone to go and witness the results of his policies in person - specifically, the Babi Yar massacre in Ukraine. Kissinger never did go see for himself the gargantuan atrocities he had "achieved" in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Timor, and Chile.
Oh, I forgot the other way Kissinger and Himmler differs... Himmler was hanged - Kissinger got off scott-free. So there's that.
👏
What like to the front? Do you know of other secretaries of state who went to the front?
Yeah... they don't really like dirtying themselves with the mess they cause, do they?
so you really REALLY do not understand the brutality of the Holocaust then, and less so the history of the sub-chinease peninsula, and Pinochet couldn't hold a candle to what Himmler did
Trying to hide your hero's crimes behind the Holocaust, are we? Just like your fascist friends over in occupied Palestine?
Try harder.
Jesus christ dude. Calm down.
Did you see me at any point not being calm?
kissinger lost his glasses in a toilet so he can't talk
probably couldn't see too well, after that, either.
Probably couldn't see before too well either, hence the need for glasses.
Then maybe they shouldn't run with a genocide supporting senior citizen as a candidate
I was more caught on Hillary implying she's less popular than Hitler.
You're gonna have to be way more specific, that's literally all of them.
Biden was my last choice in the 2020 primary, because I knew that whoever we chose would run for reelection. We were picking the President for the next 8 years, and anti-Trump conservatives out voted younger left wing voters in the primary. Even if Warren did endorse Bernie, Biden still would have won with the other candidates' endorsements. Without the pandemic, Biden might have lost, while Bernie could have pulled enough support from the base to stand a similar chance as Biden. Trump's response to the pandemic pissed off enough conservatives to give Biden the win, but it also could have given every other Democratic candidate, including Bernie, the win.
However, this doesn't mean Bernie wouldn't have drawbacks as president. The mainstream media would certainly pull a Jeremy Corbyn on Bernie. The base and everyone on Lemmy would stand by him, but he would get torn apart by MMM for doing the progressive things Biden has done, and compared to Trump for even politely disagreeing with mainstream Democrats. If was principled and did everything right, he might pull a good amount of MMM watchers to his side, but many would lap up the propaganda.
Every mistake made by Bernie would cost him dearly, while Biden has the luxury of making way more errors because he was the most conservative candidate in the primaries. Left wing Democrats aren't surprised by Biden's lameness, while conservative Democrats put up with every progressive thing Biden does because every other Democrat would have done the same or worse. Most of the MMM doesn't call Biden radical for doing progressive things, and left wing Biden voters are generally pleased that he has been more left wing than expected.
Biden's biggest failures have been where he sucks in ways you didn't expect he would. Fucking around with Manchin for months and doing nothing on immigration are huge failures. He claimed to be a deal maker, yet he tried to negotiate with someone who never intended to budge. Obama's immigration strategy only lost him support, but Biden seems to think that he could avoid motivating the anti immigration crowd. It didn't work for Obama and Hillary against Trump, and it definitely won't work for him against Trump. The most conservative Democrats would still vote for him if he tried his hardest on immigration, as neoliberals actually like immigration for its economic benefits.
In short, Bernie would have an uphill battle against the media, while Biden's mediocrity shouldn't surprise anyone on the left. 2020 was where Democrats could have gotten someone better, and now we unfortunately have to live with it.
Don't forget rapist who fucked over unions and owes me 600 dollars and finished the wall
And don't forget about how they used covid as nothing but a football and followed Trump's exact plan for it as soon as they were in charge of telling businesses they had to let sick people stay home. Democrats have more covid deaths on their hands than republicans now.
Why are things Hilly say relevant?
She is (or at least one of) the head of a massive informal organization that bridges massive formal organizations like Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, the DNC itself, and so on.
When a president wins an election for example, they have to get their staff from somewhere right? There has to be large numbers of people who can just drop what they're doing based on the outcome of an election and spend the next several years doing that instead. These people staff NGOs in the orbit of the political ruling classes of these parties. Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the country because she can decide who gets the best jobs in these organizations. She can get journalists fired, she can get ambassadors hired. That's her power.
Obama beat her and still had to deal with her to the point of setting her up to run in 2016. She didn't join his organization he became a 'board member' of hers with a small cadre of his own people.
While I'm not her fan she is right and this exactly why the current trend on. The internet of voting 3rd party is dangerous, since the Republican are not playing in good faith and they will not split their vote.
No, she is 100% incorrect. Hitler was not elected. He famously staged a coup d'etat.
She's about 60% incorrect. The nazi party won a majority in the reichstag via normal electoral means before hitler was appointed chancellor by then-president Paul von Hindenburg. It was only after a series of electoral victories and in the anticommunist bloodlust that followed the reichstag fire that a state of emergency was declared and the coup began in earnest. I'll give her that she's mostly wrong because what she literally said is untrue, but because it's an oversimplification of what happened and her broader point, that nazis used electoralism before they used brute force, is true.
What are you talking about Republicans split votes with libertarianism all the time, like constantly
Not really. Libertarian and green turnout has been down since Trump/Hillary. Apparently having two terrible candidates makes everyone a tactical voter.
Can't tell if you were talking about Clinton and Trump or Johnson and Stein. Trump and Stein were the worst two. I'm not convinced shes not a literal Russian plant, and if not she's a useful idiot for sure. Johnson wasn't even as good as his running mate, but that party is a joke anyway.
I don't understand what you mean, we recently saw some of the biggest percentages for libertarians, like the last president vote in 2020, or even 2016, I recall like 3% PR something. Basically the biggest weve seen in a while. I think Democrats are way more likely to not split. Most conservatives I know say they'd vote libertarian if it didn't feel like a throw away vote too
You're right, I was thinking of 16 to 20.
I predicted in the 2016 primaries that if HRC became the Dem nominee, it would be the one thing the Right Wing in America could unify itself against- they hated her then and they still do today; I wonder if she realizes yet how big a gift it is to a splintered, ungovernable mob of political grifters to give it anything they can unify against
It was the most tragic thing when Bernie was pushed aside in favour of H.Clinton, who polled very poorly.
With due respect, it is time for Hillary Clinton to be taken less seriously. Look at who she let win the presidency? A dynamic candidate that could connect with more voters could have flattened Trump. She came across as arrogant and entitled. She is a shrewd and intelligent person, but clearly disconnected from most normal concerns.
She got more votes - the American voters literally preferred her but the electoral college does mean some votes are effectively worth more than others.
I feel like it would be more useful if she switched sides. Like, instead of reminding us how the dnc keeps fucking us, she could remind the maga kids how close she is with Trump. Maybe they’d like him less by association.
GOP wouldn't take her, sadly. Wonder what would happen if she ran for some 3rd party.
The candidate who delivered Trump his first term, still doubling down on her "deplorables" strategy 7 years later.
But they are deplorables. And you shouldn’t be afraid to say it.
For the love of all that is, that has been, and that will be, get out and vote. Hillary opened her fucking mouth and the last time she did this shit Trump won. Every Democrat should now be rushing to the polls. The cycle is trying to repeat.
She was the candidate with so little enthusiasm of the voters. That still lost to drumpf with almost 3 million more votes...
And with raiding the coffers of down ballot races by misrepresenting a "donation sharing scheme".
People were giving donations to state parties, who gave the vast majority to Hillary.
It didn't just hurt their races, it burnt bridges with lots of people who routinely donated to states and who knows when they'll start again.
She was willing to burn it out down to win because she knew it really was her last chance to be president.
Hell, she's the main reason Trump made it to the general because she was the only one she had a chance at beating.
I think Godwin's Law now dictates that she has already lost the 2024 Presidential Election.
BACK TO THE FORESTS WITH YOU YOU FUCKING GHOUL
Rubs hands together... MUHAHAHAHAHA
I'm not sure how historically accurate that is. I mean, Hitler was appointed, not elected right? NSDAP members were elected, that is how a parliamentary system works.
Also the 1933 German elections were the result of a massive campaign of violence and intimidation against opposition parties and voters. I would hardly call that "duly elected".
Think of it as like: if we had 100x as many Proud Boys in the US, and they were posted at every polling location to decide who gets to vote or not...
In a US style first past the post system the Nazis would have made a clean sweep in July 1932, and wouldn't have had to intimidate anybody
It's complicated but basically the chancellor (not nsdap) selected hitler as a way of trying to give him some power (because nsdap was still the biggest party after the 1932 election) so he's happy but not enough where he could get out of control.
Spoiler alert it went out of control.
Considering her accuracy with him, this should make everyone who cares about the nation worried.
Was she accurate when she instructed Dem media partners to elevate Trump by name with the strategy being that he'd be too extreme for the general election?
Was she accurate when she was taking a preemptive victory lap in Texas on election night 2016?
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902?lang=en
I was talking about her "deplorables" label, nailed it. Then what she warned the world would happen to his face on stage. I am also not a fan of hers, but giver credit where it is due.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/hillary-clinton-doing-now-2020/616668/
What happened to his face?
And I'm sorry you'd have to pay me to get me to open an Atlantic article from 2020 about Hillary Clinton
Like 50 up front then like 100 an hour charged every 15 minutes I think is fair
I bet nobody ever pays you that amount of money for your time.
I wonder what they pay for a Hillary's time?
You're right. I need more Libyan blood on my hands if I want to make a quarter million in bribe money ostensibly for giving a speech to bankers.
That's delusional.
What about it?
She's not wrong.
Yes, she is.
Hitler was never elected lol. He in fact got crushed in the popular election by 20% by Hindenburg.
The Nazi party, however, won the largest number of seats of any party in the Reichstag in 1932, but leftist seats actually had a larger representation, just split between different parties.
This scared the oligarchal industry types enough that they pressured President Hindenburg into appointing Hitler as Chancellor over a less... Contentious candidate. Then a bunch of Nazi shit happened, the "centrists" did what they always do and supported the seizure of power by fascists, and two years later Chancellor Hitler became Chancellor and President Hitler, all without winning a population election.
What she should have said is that Hitler was duly appointed. By a massive fucking loser and coward who probably jerked off thinking about how he helped Germany start and lose two World Wars.
Was waiting for this comment. It's bizarre how politicians are openly wrong and no one ever seems to correct them anymore.
Are people seriously voting for trump? There is no reason other than authoritarianism. It's kinda disturbing.
The answer is yes. They're sheep.
Maybe not voting for Trump, but there are plenty who aren't going to vote for Biden due to him gargling the balls of Israel.
So they're helping Trump win. No actual difference.
A very nice black and white conclusion. Bravo.
She’s not wrong.
As she defends neo-librealist neo-facism at home and neo-facists in Israel...
She totally doesn't look like a Disney villain in this picture /s
I was thinking she looks like Palpatine's sister or something.
Somehow, she returned.
Ah yes the rampant sexism of American politics is on full display
Acting as if dislike of Hilary is solely due to sexism is either simple-minded ignorance or dismissive of people that aren't your enemy.
I voted for her, but not because I thought she was a good and honest person. I don't think that at all, and would rather Bernie have won the nomination. She was way more qualified and way less of a dangerous wildcard than Trump, so she got my vote but not everyone saw it that way unfortunately.
Among the current Repugs I'd pick Hailey now, but none of them will get my vote in the general.
It's majority sexism against a strong woman with power. The vitriol against her was unmatched. To this day people blame her for hearsay or flat out fabrications of things she supposedly did that other Politicians, namely Trump, were proven guilty of. It's incredible when you look down through the list. The Bush and Trump Administrations both violated the same data handling rules by using private communication mechanisms and commit countless crimes surrounding it; Yet Hillary is the one to get the most criticism despite nothing being covered up. I had a list years back that Trump was guilty of nearly everything the Clintons were accused of. Crazy.
I have had so many conversations with people who insist that they want women in positions of political power who can't name one woman in power that they don't hate. Generally they don't seem to have the same problem with men. So I have long since stopped talking people's assertions in the subject at face value
Ah yes, the rampant sexism of Democrats claiming that the only reason an extremely unlikable woman who cheated in her primary lost is because of sexism.
She beat him by 3 Million votes
She fucking LOST!!! Why the fuck do you think her getting 3 million more votes matters? Bernie would have won. We know this for a fact, by comparing contemporary polling data for both candidates with what actually happened. Trump is 100% the fault of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
is this thumbnail from the exorcist? damn
Please go back to whatever crevice you hide in between elections. You and your ghouls' enabling of fascists like him is what allowed him to win in the first place. Against you.
Also Hitler wasn't 'duly elected', maybe you should ask your beloved mentor Henry Kissinger for history lessons before that piece of shit croaks and makes the world a better place.
Hitler lost, and was later appointed to Chancellor unilaterally. So idk wtf she’s talking about.
I think it's close enough that you can get the point.
No, it's worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.
One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.
Edit to add link to 1932 election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election
I'd need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.
Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn't really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.
I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.
No, it’s not. Being appointed and being elected are fundamentally different. One implies a Democratic process, the other does not.
His party was democratically elected to gain enough power to get appointed. That’s the point.
Middle Finger
This is your hourly reminder that the general election is nothing but a popularity contest and all the real voting power is with the electoral college members who can vote however they like even against their states general pop vote.
Its a puppet show for adults to make the politically minded feel important. Every single canidate who makes it to the ballots is bought and paid for. Vote however you like, or not at all. It doesn't matter, and hasn't mattered for decades.
That isn't really so, faithless electors have never been likely, the occasional faithless elector has had nearly no impact on elections, and a recent (2020 I believe) Supreme Court ruling made it clear that they are not allowed.
There are many issues with the general election. The electoral college is the original gerrymandering set up by our founding white supremacists, and the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system makes sure that general elections only give the public minimal choice between two major party candidates. We desperately need to reform the system.
But voting in the general election remains necessary, to minimize harm, and voting in the primary election is vital, as the only place we get any real chance at a say. If we want to reform the system, dropping out if it is the surest way to fail. It's exactly what the major parties want you to do.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the wreckage from another Trump presidency would be “almost unimaginable” and likened the former president who beat her in the 2016 election to Adolf Hitler.
“Trump is telling us what he intends to do,” Clinton continued.
Clinton’s comments come just days after a poll showed President Biden falling behind Trump in five battleground states, raising concerns among Democrats nationwide about the potential of another Trump win.
The country is reeling from Trump’s policies and “deep divisions that he sowed,” host Sunny Hostin said of Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
Hostin asked Clinton what she thinks would happen if Trump were to be elected again in 2024.
The former first lady said she thinks Trump was somewhat restrained during his tenure as president, and she believes that wouldn’t be the case if he were to be reelected.
The original article contains 318 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Weimar Germany was much more fucked than the US is (right now). The fasc would fail if he tries it, but it'd set the stage for a successful attempt by someone else.
This cretin needs to shut the fuck up before she energizes the maga crowd and those fed up with corporate Dems just so they can send everyone into a tailspin. Why does she think anyone actually even cares about who she endorses? Witch.
I thought the mfer was appointed tho