• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I support ABH for the Democratic Nomination!

Trebuchet

Penultimate Amazing
Trebuchet
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
43,880
Location
Port Townsend, Washington
That would be "Anybody But Hillary".

I'm a liberal/progressive. So is she.
I'm in my late 60's. So is she.
I'm a guy. She's not. That's cool.

BUT:
She has baggage. So dang much baggage. Most of it is wildly exaggerated, and the rest entirely made up, but still: baggage.
* Her husband. And his zipper.
* Her failed health-care initiative.
* Benghazi
* The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
* "Foundation-gate"
* Etc., etc., etc.

We can haz another candidate, pleeze? It would throw the Repubs completely off their game, since they've been working on running against her for about 10 years now.
 
I wouldn't support "anybody but", but I'm willing to consider others. Come back with some specific names and we'll talk.



I'm reminded of that thing Rumsfeld said: You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. While I can certainly imagine better ideal candidates, unfortunately Superman and Wonder Woman don't exist, and any actual person will have flaws. Find someone with more strengths and fewer flaws than Hillary and who has at least a realistic resume, and I'll definitely consider that person.
 
Basically, he's Ralph Nader if Nader knew what he was doing.
 
Was Bernie Sanders in the senate at the same time as Hilary? If so, could it just be that he is in the campaign to keep her from getting the "most liberal senator" charge?
 
Hill won't give up until somebody else gets the nomination.

Waay too soon to even say who else will run against her in the primaries. Who has declared? Only Her and Bernie? But I suspect that since Foundationgate hit the news, there is some thinking going on.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Was Bernie Sanders in the senate at the same time as Hilary? If so, could it just be that he is in the campaign to keep her from getting the "most liberal senator" charge?
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, but identifies as a Socialist. I don't think his title as most "most liberal Senator" was ever in any jeopardy.
 
casebro said:
Hill won't give up until somebody else gets the nomination.

Waay too soon to even say who else will run against her in the primaries. Who has declared? Only Her and Bernie? But I suspect that since Foundationgate hit the news, there is some thinking going on.
Click to expand...

She probably leaked it herself.

Seriously, by the time the election comes around, that's going to be such old news that it won't be worth bringing it up.

If you wanted to take out Hilary, you wouldn't have brought this up now, you would have waited until near the primaries or the election.
 
theprestige said:
Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, but identifies as a Socialist. I don't think his title as most "most liberal Senator" was ever in any jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Right. But that doesn't stop the right from accusing whatever current candidate is around of being the "most liberal member of congress." They try it with everyone. They even used it with Obama, who wasn't anywhere close to the most liberal democrat in the Senate.
 
pgwenthold said:
She probably leaked it herself.

Seriously, by the time the election comes around, that's going to be such old news that it won't be worth bringing it up.

If you wanted to take out Hilary, you wouldn't have brought this up now, you would have waited until near the primaries or the election.
Click to expand...

The best way would be to continually leak low-level scandals. Preferable things that are a bit difficult for the layman to understand, real enough to stand to initial scrutiny, but not harmful enough for people to really feel it needs a concerted debunking effort, and especially hard for the layman to understand why it wasn't really a big deal when any liberal tries to explain it to them. Things like possible tax foul-ups, shady land deals, consensual but extra-marital sex: things that are technically true, but inconsequential.

Alternatively, just JAQ-off about every decision they've made. Question motives and imply behind-the-scenes shenanigans. This works especially well if the target is in a high-profile, but poorly understood position of authority, like Secretary of State.

Either way, you keep the name associated with constant scandal. Then, just before the election, you announce something big. People will accept it easier because "Well, so-n-so's *always* involved in *something* shady". The harder the opposition tries to fight it, the more you can push the "Why are you covering it up" button. Heck, the big scandal doesn't even have to be true: there won't be enough time to really investigate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom