New Book "Chasing Hillary"

[bobgeese]

what kind of hot sauce do you keep in your fanny pack?

Any real hot sauce aficionado has at least two hot sauces. Lying bitch pandering to the hot sauce demographic. Is there no one she won’t pander to?

 

[Quequeg]

Any real hot sauce aficionado has at least two hot sauces. Lying bitch pandering to the hot sauce demographic. Is there no one she won’t pander to?

Bob, all you do here is confirm the stereotype that Trump supporters are moronic trolls.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You should all, every single one of you, be ashamed for having a protracted argument about the hot sauce in 2018.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You should all, every single one of you, be ashamed for having a protracted argument about the hot sauce in 2018.

It really illustrates the problem. False claim is made, it's shown to be false but people remember the claim and not the truth, and that false understanding then affects their thinking going forward. That's how a lot of political propaganda works, and if we're concerned about truth, we should try to root it all out.

Also, look how immaturely the guy reacted to finding out that he'd been misled. Blames the messenger, and generally behaves in a way not befitting a grown man.

 

[Quequeg]

It really illustrates the problem. False claim is made, it's shown to be false but people remember the claim and not the truth, and that false understanding then affects their thinking going forward. That's how a lot of political propaganda works, and if we're concerned about truth, we should try to root it all out.

Also, look how immaturely the guy reacted to finding out that he'd been misled. Blames the messenger, and generally behaves in a way not befitting a grown man.

The behavior is so predictable, make easily debunked false claims, get corrected, either double down on the stupidity, get personal, or post a meme.

 

[senri]

Dude, I don't care what you think of her taste. The point is simply that the fact that she carries hot sauce everywhere she goes has been known and commented on publicly for more than two full decades (and if you search, you can find even more references to it than the ones I posted).

And thanks on the edits. Don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I try to clean things up and clarify when necessary.

There is only one taste you should think about Mr Savage...

 

[bobgeese]

Bob, all you do here is confirm the stereotype that Trump supporters are moronic trolls.

Yet I never have to resort to name calling, and I start useful threads like the Comey memo leaks thread.

Can’t recall you ever contributing anything tbh. Of course, we don’t know what your last account was, but I’m guessing that was forgettable too.

As a bonus, by the end of the Trump term, I’ll look FAR more reasonable than most of the liberals here. Impeachment is coming any day now, right....

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Yeah true it just so happened that this time people wanted to hear that kind of stuff. Also, because everyone in the GOP primary and Hillary later were unable to deal with his style.
Its a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on my part of course. If Trump would have lost I would criticize him for his strategy .

I would have beaten Trump with the power of silence. Just let him talk himself out of winning instead of engaging him.
People like Trump don't understand the power silence they fear them. So do most other politicians.
Just don't go into the mud with Trump because that's where he is going to win. Unfortunately, all other candidates did that.

To be fair, it's a route many politicians take. But one gets the feeling that with Trump, it was the only option he had. Most politicians can actually talk about their positions when they need to in detail, the issue is that it will alienate certain groups of voters and that's bad for business during a campaign. That's why you get a lot of general broad statements about things along with very noncommittal answers to direct questions.


And that's where Trump came across as being 'genuine'. He had nothing to lose so he rolled with a lot of 'what people want to hear' rhetoric for answers to stock questions - which alienated certain groups of people but struck a chord with others. And when he was asked to go into detail about things, this divide allowed him to fall back on the 'you're attacking me because you don't like me' vibe, which also played to his core audience while simultaneously allowing him to bypass having an actual answer.


I'll give him this, he played the role like a seasoned award winning actor at times. But I knew what I was seeing every time he took the stage.

 

[Gutter Chris]

She plain and simple thought she was the heir apparent and it came back to bite her in the ass. She also relied so heavy on the fact that "women are going to vote for me because I'm a woman" and that turned out to be a HUGE miscalculation.

Also LOL at her swearing a lot so she didn't swear on stage, I've found that to be the opposite the more I swear the most often I interject an F bomb at inappropriate times.

She should have just went with the swearing

It have been Fn amazing if Hillary turned into Bullworth halfway through the election complete with "those mother fuckers there the insurance companies" and finger jab

Woulda won that shit like she always hoped and wanted more than like

 

[Jack V Savage]

She should have just went with the swearing

It have been Fn amazing if Hillary turned into Bullworth halfway through the election complete with "those mother fuckers there the insurance companies" and finger jab

Woulda won that shit like she always hoped and wanted more than like

It would have been even more amazing if the campaign was just, like, about the issues they disagree on (financial deregulation vs. tighter regs, tax cuts for large inheritances vs. none, higher MW vs. not, tighter environmental regs vs. looser, etc.). God forbid.

 

[Gutter Chris]

It would have been even more amazing if the campaign was just, like, about the issues they disagree on (financial deregulation vs. tighter regs, tax cuts for large inheritances vs. none, higher MW vs. not, tighter environmental regs vs. looser, etc.). God forbid.

They never are you can be the smartest fucker in the room but if you have xpac charisma you arent going anywhere

I voted for her because I do not trust republicans to manage the economy or even attempt to fix healthcare but I totally think she is an unlikable crook. I get voting on issues but I am aware of how the game is played and she has never ever been good at making people like her and thus failed at multiple shots at the brass ring. At the end of the day it doesnt matter how smart, qualified or even how corrupt she is , she is not good at presenting herself and that makes for a bad candidate

 

[Jack V Savage]

They never are you can be the smartest fucker in the room but if you have xpac charisma you arent going anywhere

I voted for her because I do not trust republicans to manage the economy or even attempt to fix healthcare but I totally think she is an unlikable crook. I get voting on issues but I am aware of how the game is played and she has never ever been good at making people like her and thus failed at multiple shots at the brass ring. At the end of the day it doesnt matter how smart, qualified or even how corrupt she is , she is not good at presenting herself and that makes for a bad candidate

She actually has been good at making people like her (had approval over 65%, plus see comments from colleagues and co-workers). And the notion that she's a "crook" is based on air. Trump (a legit crook) was able to make it stick through repetition.

Also, I think the whole "bad candidate" thing is weird. Like, it was an exceptionally close race, and she actually won the popular vote. And it was a year that was favorable to Republicans. And she outperformed downballot Dems. It would have been better for the country if she'd won, of course, but this weird hatred after the fact doesn't really add up. You never see people say that Romney was the worst candidate ever and he should shut his mouth and call him vile names or whatever.

My main concern is that getting it so wrong is going to distort people's thinking going forward. It's unfortunate, but if we really want a better America, we have to pay closer attention to politics and to avoid intellectual errors around it.

 

[irish_thug]

what kind of hot sauce do you keep in your fanny pack?

It's in my cooler bag, and usually franks, unless I'm trying something new.

 

[Gutter Chris]

She actually has been good at making people like her (had approval over 65%, plus see comments from colleagues and co-workers). And the notion that she's a "crook" is based on air. Trump (a legit crook) was able to make it stick through repetition.

It isnt though shes had years of being wealthy and playing weathly people games .... Its why I believe every bad thing about trump too when it comes to shady financial stuff that is just how that class rolls

If the clinton foundation and the bank speeches dont look dirty to you than we can agree to disagree. I voted for her at the end of the day like I mentioned so you dont need to convince me either way

Also, I think the whole "bad candidate" thing is weird. Like, it was an exceptionally close race, and she actually won the popular vote. And it was a year that was favorable to Republicans. And she outperformed downballot Dems. It would have been better for the country if she'd won, of course, but this weird hatred after the fact doesn't really add up. You never see people say that Romney was the worst candidate ever and he should shut his mouth and call him vile names or whatever.

I agree the country would more than likely be better off if she had won but she was unable to pull that off for us due to being a bad candidate (unable to overcome the republican bullshit) and results matter.

Mitt Romney is another dude with no charisma who ran on the its my turn ticket and he also got smoked multiple times which further proves that if election results matter than you should not run these unlikable people as they cant win and it opens the door for the other side to have 4 years to push forward whatever they want.

The goal is to win elections and its kinda funny you would compare her to another multiple time loser to prove your point


Now if this makes you feel better I have seen your chatter about the hot sauce all day and I do believe that you are correct and that all evidence points to her being a long time spice lover , still a bankster but she does love her some hot sauce

 

[Jack V Savage]

It isnt though shes had years of being wealthy and playing weathly people games .... Its why I believe every bad thing about trump too when it comes to shady financial stuff that is just how that class rolls

If the clinton foundation and the bank speeches dont look dirty to you than we can agree to disagree. I voted for her at the end of the day like I mentioned so you dont need to convince me either way

What do you mean "look dirty"? She gave speeches to banks for money. That's not illegal or crooked in any way. And by all accounts, the Foundation was exemplary. And if you just think that all rich people are crooked, you are still left explaining why it would be notable in any particular case.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just want to get to the truth for anyone who still cares about that stuff.

I agree the country would more than likely be better off if she had won but she was unable to pull that off for us due to being a bad candidate (unable to overcome the republican bullshit) and results matter.

What is the metric you're looking at to declare her a "bad candidate"? As I said, everything that I'd think you'd want to look at shows the opposite.

Mitt Romney is another dude with no charisma who ran on the its my turn ticket and he also got smoked multiple times which further proves that if election results matter than you should not run these unlikable people as they cant win and it opens the door for the other side to have 4 years to push forward whatever they want.

What I'd say is that candidates (who no voters really know) are not likable or unlikable on their own. If not for the recession in 1992, Bill would have lost and people would say that he was unlikable. If Obama had run in 2000 rather than 2008, he would have lost and been too unlikable. Etc. It's just outcome bias.

The goal is to win elections and its kinda funny you would compare her to another multiple time loser to prove your point

... my point that she's irrationally treated differently than other losing candidates? I could only compare her to other candidates who have lost to make that point. Not sure what's funny about that unless you didn't understand the point.

Now if this makes you feel better I have seen your chatter about the hot sauce all day and I do believe that you are correct and that all evidence points to her being a long time spice lover , still a bankster but she does love her some hot sauce

I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. It's not a cheerleading competition. I'm just trying to get at the truth.

 

[Fawlty]

I think a lot of people on the left would agree with most of what you said here. The thing is people are placing WAY too much weight on likability and not nearly enough on substance. But yeah, there are lots of us that don't think she would have been as good as Obama (I don't think Bill was all that great, so she could have been as good or a little better than him).

But people itt and in general are taking her faults way off the deep end or are complaining about the wrong stuff. Look at these guys complaining about her hot sauce comment, it's fucking absurd!

I think complaints about Hillary's likability fail a bit because Trump was extremely unlikable. Had the votes swung a bit the other way we would be hearing all about how Trump failed because of his being a complete piece of shit, and that even though he pandered hard to the rust belt, he still couldn't close the deal. It's fickle as hell.

And simply not liking the personality of a candidate is not usually enough to swing a vote in a general election anyway- much less to an obviously less likable person. Almost everything anyone has said since the election has been sketchy or flat wrong. I've even had to question my assumptions about the effectiveness of the Trump strategy in the rust belt, because his support across the middle class wasn't as high as I assumed.

 

[Gutter Chris]

What do you mean "look dirty"? She gave speeches to banks for money. That's not illegal or crooked in any way. And by all accounts, the Foundation was exemplary. And if you just think that all rich people are crooked, you are still left explaining why it would be notable in any particular case.

you are right none of it is against the law per say but we seem to having problems with bankers in this country and her taking their money makes me believe she would be willing in the drivers seat to do their bidding

Clinton foundation looks like pay to play. If it is or isnt I cant say I wasnt there but I can comment on how it looks

Like I said I believe it because the 1 percent always have great lawyers and friends in the right places and this seems to be something that has always gone on. Its not just Hillary I believe it of all extremely wealthy people

What is the metric you're looking at to declare her a "bad candidate"? As I said, everything that I'd think you'd want to look at shows the opposite.

To me already losing in a primary is a bad sign that the public does not like or trust you and before this election that was already true of her. Now with this election that makes her a 2 time loser. That is why I keep saying shes a bad candidate and she sure as hell should not run a third time

What I'd say is that candidates (who no voters really know) are not likable or unlikable on their own. If not for the recession in 1992, Bill would have lost and people would say that he was unlikable. If Obama had run in 2000 rather than 2008, he would have lost and been too unlikable. Etc. It's just outcome bias.

I dont believe this to be true. Some people have charisma and some people do not. obama clinton trump and bush all know how to work a room. Ya know what 2 things those 4 dudes have in common but mitt and Hillary do not ? There is always a this or that could have happened argument to be had but charisma seems to be an age old asset in winning the big one

I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. It's not a cheerleading competition. I'm just trying to get at the truth.

Im all for having a go at Hillary but there are just much better things to have a whack at than something that can be put to bed so easily with zero debate . We can argue all day about her personality and if her relationship with bankers is to chummy but her love for hot sauce goes way back .

 

[Fawlty]

the embedded "article"? sure.

nice try, smart guy

Is this fuckin' guy accusing a newspaper or sherdog poster of conspiring to plant a false story in their archives just so Hillary doesn't lose face over hot sauce? Is this real life?

 

[Gutter Chris]

You should all, every single one of you, be ashamed for having a protracted argument about the hot sauce in 2018.

 

[Jack V Savage]

you are right none of it is against the law say but we seem to having problems with bankers in this country and her taking their money makes me believe she would be willing in the drivers seat to do their bidding

Clinton foundation looks like pay to play. If it is or isnt I cant say I wasnt there but I can comment on how it looks

I think the "pay to play" accusation is batshit crazy. Probably you haven't looked into the claims and are just blindly going along with stuff from 4Chan or something. And the bank thing is weird. You're shifting between saying that she's like a cartoonish villain and she's like a knight. "I once did freelance work for that company, therefore I'm sworn to them and their competitors for life. It's a sacred bond."

To me already losing in a primary is a bad sign that the public does not like or trust you and before this election that was already true of her. Now with this election that makes her a 2 time loser. That is why I keep saying shes a bad candidate and she sure as hell should not run a third time

She's not running a third time, but you're showing how easy it is to manipulate people, which is a problem for future candidates. And surely you don't consistently hold the view that losing two extremely close, extremely high-profile elections means you're a "bad" candidate. That's like saying that losing two title fights makes someone a "bad" fighter.

I dont believe this to be true. Some people have charisma and some people do not. obama clinton trump and bush all know how to work a room. Ya know what 2 things those 4 dudes have in common but mitt and Hillary do not ? There is always a this or that could have happened argument to be had but charisma seems to be an age old asset in winning the big one

"Charisma" is awarded after the fact, is my point. When's the last election that had a result that fundamentals wouldn't have predicted without any concern for who the candidates were? Going back to Nixon, off hand, I can't think of any (that is, Republicans had a small edge in 2016, Democrats had a small edge in 2012, Democrats had a large edge in 2008, Republicans had edges in 2004 and 2000, etc.).