Oct 25, 2017
6,123
Brooklyn, NY
Imagine going from a black power fist to a /r/neoliberal troll avatar

Edit: also pigeon's socialism is so liberal that they once on the old board literally wrote out the "socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the more socialister it is" meme, but unironically

I'm not sure if he knows when he's being ironic anymore.

having stupidly wasted time and energy on an argument with him yesterday, even though I thought I knew better: regardless of his personal politics, pigeon is every bit as invested in attacking and trolling leftists as an end in itself as your average member of Donut Emoji Twitter. not worth engaging
 

resident_UA

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,400
It really, really shouldn't piss you off. There's plenty of reason to care about what Clinton did in 2008:

1). It's history. It informs our understanding of an important public figure, our understanding of an important campaign, and how those two things intersected with an environment in which sexual harassers so often operated with impunity. This helps contextualize the present, as well.

2). Clinton, as a public figure, will continue to be influential for a long time. She'll be influential as a reference point for current and future public servants, as a reference point for how we understand events of the past, and as a voice that continues resonate with a lot of people. Knowing "what she did in 2008" is meaningful.

3). In general, people still find her interesting. She tends to come up in our personal narratives about politics, feminism, and other such things; we discuss her, and knowing "what she did in 2008" makes for a more informed discussion.

4). Although there is a moral element to the passage of time, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have to reckon with some facet of the past once it loses direct relevance to the present. The action of reporting (and caring about) such things helps to uphold that principle.

In general, I don't understand how it's possible not to see the inherent newsworthiness of a story about Hillary Clinton shielding a sexual harasser from losing his job in her campaign. It's fine to be frustrated by some aspect of how people process or frame that story, but any frustration with the idea of it being reported at all definitely isn't coming from a place focusing on the story's merits.

My point is not if it's newsworthy or not. That is not for me to decide. My issue is that all of this including your comments are nothing more than pure outrage with ZERO consequences to anything but the reputation of the Dems. We have learned nothing from #Meetoo campaign and we have no new insights how to deal with sexual harassment.
 

Deleted member 6949

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,786
My point is not if it's newsworthy or not. That is not for me to decide. My issue is that all of this including your comments are nothing more than pure outrage with ZERO consequences to anything but the reputation of the Dems. We have learned nothing from #Meetoo campaign and we have no new insights how to deal with sexual harassment.

Well one thing we've learned is that when someone is sexually harassed at work they shouldn't be the one who has to change jobs.
 

LinktothePastGOAT

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,879
3511.jpg

You got him there. Seeing as how Trump and Bernie pushed us to get out of TPP and now we've LITERALLY been left out of a huge trade agreement that will now help China more than anyone else due to our absence, you probably shouldn't use that against pigeon.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,103
Konoha
Those being possible shops doesn't change the fact Hillary shielded a sexual harasser.
Hillary moving the victim around in the organization was deleterious to her career. The fact that she could no longer be around this guy who was close to Clinton means that she could never advance to a position where she was also close to Clinton, so that means she's was a dead-end in that organization.
 
Last edited:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,649
Alrighty Buzzfeed has an incredible piece that goes into hardcore detail about everything Strider was accused of and even includes his horrible explanation

Speaking by phone in a 45-minute call, he addressed claims laid out for him in a 16-point email, sent by BuzzFeed News. He acknowledged many of the incidents as true. Others, he said, he did not recall in the same way as the women interviewed for this report. He dismissed some of his actions as simply friendly, or characteristic of what he described as his Southern background. At the same time, he apologized broadly for his behavior, and noted that he has struggled with depression and is in therapy. In the case of his conduct toward the woman who worked for him on the Clinton campaign in 2007, Strider said, "I didn't consider it excessive, but that doesn't mean it wasn't to her."


In November 2007, a direct subordinate filed a complaint about Strider within the Clinton campaign, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. The woman in the complaint, whom BuzzFeed News is not naming, did not respond to emails this week.

The complaint was filed to Jessica O'Connell, the national director of operations, and quickly rose to the attention of the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and eventually, to Clinton herself, according to documents and accounts from three former campaign officials.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the young woman sat for an interview with a top campaign official. Notes about that meeting describe her account of Strider's behavior as follows:

  • gets "angry when she does not share or reveal personal information"

  • is "touchy," including "5 kisses on the head (on one occasion closing the door to do so, one occasion in the elevator)"

  • "wants her to leave all events with him"

  • "makes a point of always leaving with her (she varies her times to try to avoid him, but he asks her to wait so they can commute together)"

  • engages in "excessive tracking of whereabouts"

  • "said he loved her as a friend"

  • "told her he wants to get her drunk"

  • "told her he buys porn while on the road for travel"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer...his-harassment?utm_term=.fbZ6wONm5#.gu72jlEYA

Also just so we're not in any doubt about the birthday party not meaning anythin they clearly are close enough that she'll do private lunches with him.

 

KingKong

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,538
You got him there. Seeing as how Trump and Bernie pushed us to get out of TPP and now we've LITERALLY been left out of a huge trade agreement that will now help China more than anyone else due to our absence, you probably shouldn't use that against pigeon.

Who do you think on this board is going to be impressed by your xenophobia against China?
 

TooBusyLookinGud

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
8,252
California
It's hard to even care about politics in America anymore. She shouldn't have kept the man on her staff period. I'm not surprised as the current American political landscape is a cesspool of liars and defender of liars.
 

Luchashaq

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
4,329
I strongly disagree. Some of us have been saying for (literally) decades that Hillary is a trash person who cannot be trusted anywhere near a position of power. Over and over again, people like me have been told that we're misogynists who only hate Hillary because she's a strong woman and we just can't handle that. So when the opportunity comes along to say "I told you so," I'm going to indulge. Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with that.

Yup, the reasons I hated clinton for a long ass time have almost no overlap with what you heard on fox news yet any criticism = misogyny. It's a joke and has been for a long time. Her garbage campaign being embarrassed is the only silver lining of an obese cheeto presidency.
 

bionic77

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,931
User warned for ignoring moderator instructions and dismissing the story in the OP
The only reason to talk about Hillary in 2018 is because you either want to blame her for the loss in the election or somehow want to make the case that it was the right thing to do to elect Donald Trump.

Its going to be crazy when we are still talking about her in 2020.
 

makonero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,764
The only reason to talk about Hillary in 2018 is because you either want to blame her for the loss in the election or somehow want to make the case that it was the right thing to do to elect Donald Trump.

Its going to be crazy when we are still talking about her in 2020.

I'm actually okay with her sucking up the oxygen in the room right now. It frees up other Democrats from being smeared in the meantime and hopefully they can all distance themselves from her before midterms and the 2020 election.
 

Deleted member 3345

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,967
He said he frequently kissed people on the head, dating back to his days on Capitol Hill, describing the act of touching or kissing someone on the head as part of cheering staffers on and doing devotional blessings. "I quit doing that after '08, and I picked it up again at Correct the Record," he said, "because all my young researchers seemed to like it."

This guy
 

Zeno

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,150
The only reason to talk about Hillary in 2018 is because you either want to blame her for the loss in the election or somehow want to make the case that it was the right thing to do to elect Donald Trump.

Its going to be crazy when we are still talking about her in 2020.
I'm under the impression that she's still one of the faces and (considered) leaders of women's rights movements, so this is actually relevant even if Hillary isn't relevant in politics anymore.
 

Novel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,933
The only reason to talk about Hillary in 2018 is because you either want to blame her for the loss in the election or somehow want to make the case that it was the right thing to do to elect Donald Trump.

Its going to be crazy when we are still talking about her in 2020.

Ummm, or, y'know because this is an important topic and she's literally protecting and covering up an awful sexual predator.
Why would you hand-wave this away?
 

Jack Remington

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,083
Yup, the reasons I hated clinton for a long ass time have almost no overlap with what you heard on fox news yet any criticism = misogyny. It's a joke and has been for a long time. Her garbage campaign being embarrassed is the only silver lining of an obese cheeto presidency.

So basically you held a really weird personal stance on someone with no real basis for doing so, and now something you had no idea about at the time comes up, so you feel like you deserve retroactive vindication.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,469
So basically you held a really weird personal stance on someone with no real basis for doing so, and now something you had no idea about at the time comes up, so you feel like you deserve retroactive vindication.

Or she covered up for Bill for a long time which made it obvious she wasn't a great person...now she's covering for someone else and it shows she's even worse.
 

Jack Remington

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,083
Or she covered up for Bill for a long time which made it obvious she wasn't a great person...now she's covering for someone else and it shows she's even worse.

It is highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton believes that Bill is anything more than an adulterer.

With this post, I am not making a statement as to whether or not he is more than an adulterer, and this post should not be taken as such by anyone, mods or otherwise.
 

LinktothePastGOAT

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,879
The Democrats seems to have an issue. If they cannot get any new or good candidates for the next election, then they are giving the presidency to Trump and the Republicans on a silver platter.

Polls say otherwise. I know I know polls don't matter (even though the polls were right about the popular vote). Trump is polling the worst of any Pres in his first year in modern history. Republicans are most likely going to lose the House this year. The Dems don't need a fantastic candidate to beat Trump this time.
 

TooBusyLookinGud

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
8,252
California
The Democrats seems to have an issue. If they cannot get any new or good candidates for the next election, then they are giving the presidency to Trump and the Republicans on a silver platter.
Trump barely won this one. I think he has turned enough stomachs that a microwave could beat him.

I don't see it unless they suppress the hell out of voters again. Voters in Alabama were hip to them trying to suppress them during the special election and they were ready with paperwork in hand.

Republicans are the minority and they can only win with gerrymandering and suppression tactics.
 

Jack Remington

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,083
Trump would have lost by 5-6 points if the FBI Director hadn't violated the Hatch Act 10 days before the election.

Any of the top-tier Dems will beat him in 2020.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The Democrats seems to have an issue. If they cannot get any new or good candidates for the next election, then they are giving the presidency to Trump and the Republicans on a silver platter.
The Dems have a gigantic backlog of candidates due to no one wanting to run against Clinton while she had Obama's backing. New candidates won't be an issue in 19/20.
 

Deleted member 3897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,638
Maybe the dems should try with an actual leftist this time? Bernie was close, but not an actual leftist in the European term.
 

Jack Remington

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,083
The Dems have a gigantic backlog of candidates due to no one wanting to run against Clinton while she was at 65% in primary polls. New candidates won't be an issue in 19/20.

FTFY.

Maybe the dems should try with an actual leftist this time? Bernie was close, but not an actual leftist in the European term.

Maybe strategizing is useless because people are going to campaign, and voters are going to vote for whoever they like best based on those campaigns.
 

Kitsunelaine

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,382
Yes, run a candidate that is even FURTHER to the left of where most Americans fall politically. That sounds like a sure-fire way to win an election. For Republicans, that is.

*whispers* I think you've picked up on the strategy here.

The best way to kill a political party is to convince it's voters that none of their candidates will ever be good enough for them.
 
Last edited:

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,082
The only reason to talk about Hillary in 2018 is because you either want to blame her for the loss in the election or somehow want to make the case that it was the right thing to do to elect Donald Trump.

Its going to be crazy when we are still talking about her in 2020.

Seems like a pretty good time to me. I'm pretty sure the nominee in 2020 wouldn't want Hillary campaigning for them only to have to spend weeks talking about this whenever it made it to a right-wing outlet. Get it out the way now. And more importantly, make the moves necessary to make sure that the Clinton's are nowhere near the 2020 elections. I'm not talking about running, i'm simply talking about them being part of any campaigns in any official capacity. She nor Bill should be speaking at the DNC or campaigning officially for the candidate that year.
 

Azzanadra

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,815
Canada

I don't know about xenophobia, but as a Canadian the most troubling aspects of TPP were the IP provisions, drug laws that could potentially eliminate cheaper products on the market, loss of jobs and and suing governments through tribunals... surely these things warrant suspicion enough? On one hand its giving even more power to corporations, which might be great if you embrace the cyberpunk capitalist dystopia (only half-kidding). Maybe its seen differently in the US, but Canadians are generally more wary of corporate power, and drug prices could do major damage to our healthcare system. I imagine it would be pretty bad on you guys too, with how expensive drugs already are in America.

It also didn't help the only guy who was overtly pro-TPP was the leader of the Canadian Conservative party and noted Islamophobe Stephen Harper. Our current liberal government was more iffy on it, but ultimately their decision hinged on that of the US- which is why I am glad Trump killed it, personally I think its the only good thing he has done.
 

LinktothePastGOAT

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,879
in that speech, absolutely. It's a carefully crafted message to sell TPP

So because someone doesn't want one nation who is seeking to become a world power to benefit the most from a trade agreement that makes said person xenophobist?

I don't see Obama arguing against Japan or Canada because they're not trying to become THE world power. Whether it's the seas, shutting down free speech in universities in this country, etc. these are facts. No different than the Koch Brothers in the US are using money's to gain influence.

Also the POTUS like any leader of a nation first and foremost needs to look out for the best interest of his or her nation.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,987
Maybe the dems should try with an actual leftist this time? Bernie was close, but not an actual leftist in the European term.

Whether Bernie is a Leftist in European terms is irrelevant, since he's not running in Europe. What this is is a disconnect on the political spectrum between US and European politics, and is not helped by running someone further to the Left. A lot of people are "centrists" in the US (though whether this is because of ignorance/fear/"those damn commies" or an actual truly held ideology is debatable). Yes, there's a lot of Leftists voters in the US, but considering Hillary won the Primary, there's obviously not enough of them.

Ok, why do you think America should be the one to lead the world on global trade?

Not wanting to butt in too much, but... I've always believed that the US leading on world trade was as much to do with geopolitics as economics - like not wanting the world following a quasi-communist/not-quite-capitalist country with a track-record of human rights violations and anti-democratic behaviour. That is, a variant on "soft power". It certainly isn't xenophobia, as that was easily seen in the anti-Japanese economic behaviour of the US during the 70s/80s/early 90s.
 

Deleted member 3345

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,967
The fight against china is that china is a communist country. They want to move one way, they move that way. It's obvious when they decided to stop killing their own citizens with pollution, and moved to being the biggest producers of solar panels, and went cold turkey on dirty coal.

The US still has dickheads in congress and in the administration arguing about weather global warming is real.

China is doing the right thing right now, because it's economically prudent to them. The US has historically made decisions on whats good for the global economy, since the US used to be the smart position on what to do about global situations.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
17,124
Montreal
i'm sure we can separate discussion the country China from Chinese people when discussing about China.

being critical of China, its government, its trade policies, is no shape way or form xenophobia towards the Chinese as people.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,624
canada
I don't know about xenophobia, but as a Canadian the most troubling aspects of TPP were the IP provisions, drug laws that could potentially eliminate cheaper products on the market, loss of jobs and and suing governments through tribunals... surely these things warrant suspicion enough? On one hand its giving even more power to corporations, which might be great if you embrace the cyberpunk capitalist dystopia (only half-kidding). Maybe its seen differently in the US, but Canadians are generally more wary of corporate power, and drug prices could do major damage to our healthcare system. I imagine it would be pretty bad on you guys too, with how expensive drugs already are in America.

It also didn't help the only guy who was overtly pro-TPP was the leader of the Canadian Conservative party and noted Islamophobe Stephen Harper. Our current liberal government was more iffy on it, but ultimately their decision hinged on that of the US- which is why I am glad Trump killed it, personally I think its the only good thing he has done.

Its quite nice that the IP laws that were the major issues have mostly been scrapped (happened last week I believe?) and its thanks to Canada putting her foot down.