The GOP did an unworldly job smearing his reputation, and unfortunately so much of the media just played along for the cheap joke and sensationalism value. Unfortunately, I think this helped poison the views of a bunch of younger voters, costing perfectly worthy successors to him such as Gore and Hillary to fall short, electing a vastly inferior alternative each time, as a result.
The small list of Clinton’s moral failings never affected his presidential ability in a significant way, and are absolutely dwarfed by what came later.
So America collectively got to have its larfs at Clinton’s expense, while in the long term shooting itself in the collective face. Haha?
I voted for her but necessity but I’m not so sure about including Hillary Clinton in the “worthy successor” category. She’d been hilariously out of touch since Bill was president, Pokemon Go To The Polls wasn’t a fluke
You’re completely delusional if you think Hillary would have been worse than the alt.
She’s not the greatest of charmers, but look at the body of her work. She’s a super-smart person, and proactive politician, with vast presidential experience, with a long, excellent track-record upon voting-rights. All the real metrics measure her as vastly more desirable than the utter shit-show that took place, instead.
Johnny, I said I voted for her. I encouraged others to vote for her. She was absolutely the better option.
But Hillary Clinton was an establishment Democrat campaigning as an establishment Democrat in a time when we need to be much further left than the status quo.
She was a bad option but she was the better option
Like-- when you need a vastly superior candidate such as Gore or Hillary to shift their significant message upon an idiot base of voters, that’s when you know you got Trouble. With a capital “T,” and that rhymes with “P,” and that stands for “pool.”
And like, when it comes down to hostage situations? You don’t negotiate with terrorists. And yet that’s exactly what the USA has been doing since around the time of Nixon (well before, really, but let’s keep some context). Allowing terrorists to nakedly buy up votes.
This nation is sinking like a stone, exactly predictable upon the overload of assholes & idiots it spawned since day one. And that’s how that works, mate.
I guess I’m confused at what I said that you disagree with. The only thing I disagree with you on here is that Hillary Clinton was “worthy successor” but if you’re saying she’d be a worthy successor to continue the status quo or slide to the right, I agree.
I’m trying to figure out what YOU’RE talking about.
My first reply said she wasn’t a great candidate but I voted for her out of necessity.
You replied about how she was a way better choice than Trump…which obviously I agreed with, I said i voted for her…
Then your next reply seems like it’s in total agreement but phrased like you think I disagree with it. I think we’re on the same page but there’s just some miscommunication…
They were pointing out why she lost (being an out of touch defender of the status quo) and stating that being better than the alternative doesn’t automatically make her good.
The small list of Clinton’s moral failings never affected his presidential ability in a significant way
(Bill) Clinton normalized the highest office being held by a person who unapologeticly abused their power dynamic to force sexual encounters on others.
Edit: Or maybe you meant Hilary, sorry.
In that case, yes. She was clearly the superior shit sandwich between the two with enough funding to buy the election.
The GOP did an unworldly job smearing his reputation, and unfortunately so much of the media just played along for the cheap joke and sensationalism value. Unfortunately, I think this helped poison the views of a bunch of younger voters, costing perfectly worthy successors to him such as Gore and Hillary to fall short, electing a vastly inferior alternative each time, as a result.
The small list of Clinton’s moral failings never affected his presidential ability in a significant way, and are absolutely dwarfed by what came later.
So America collectively got to have its larfs at Clinton’s expense, while in the long term shooting itself in the collective face. Haha?
I voted for her but necessity but I’m not so sure about including Hillary Clinton in the “worthy successor” category. She’d been hilariously out of touch since Bill was president, Pokemon Go To The Polls wasn’t a fluke
You’re completely delusional if you think Hillary would have been worse than the alt.
She’s not the greatest of charmers, but look at the body of her work. She’s a super-smart person, and proactive politician, with vast presidential experience, with a long, excellent track-record upon voting-rights. All the real metrics measure her as vastly more desirable than the utter shit-show that took place, instead.
GTFO
Johnny, I said I voted for her. I encouraged others to vote for her. She was absolutely the better option.
But Hillary Clinton was an establishment Democrat campaigning as an establishment Democrat in a time when we need to be much further left than the status quo.
She was a bad option but she was the better option
That’s kinda what I’m suggesting there, mate.
Like-- when you need a vastly superior candidate such as Gore or Hillary to shift their significant message upon an idiot base of voters, that’s when you know you got Trouble. With a capital “T,” and that rhymes with “P,” and that stands for “pool.”
And like, when it comes down to hostage situations? You don’t negotiate with terrorists. And yet that’s exactly what the USA has been doing since around the time of Nixon (well before, really, but let’s keep some context). Allowing terrorists to nakedly buy up votes.
This nation is sinking like a stone, exactly predictable upon the overload of assholes & idiots it spawned since day one. And that’s how that works, mate.
I guess I’m confused at what I said that you disagree with. The only thing I disagree with you on here is that Hillary Clinton was “worthy successor” but if you’re saying she’d be a worthy successor to continue the status quo or slide to the right, I agree.
Mate, what the Blimey are you talking 'bout…?
I’m trying to figure out what YOU’RE talking about.
My first reply said she wasn’t a great candidate but I voted for her out of necessity.
You replied about how she was a way better choice than Trump…which obviously I agreed with, I said i voted for her…
Then your next reply seems like it’s in total agreement but phrased like you think I disagree with it. I think we’re on the same page but there’s just some miscommunication…
Lol… dude. Ma dude.
If you need me to spell out this total shitshow for you, then you’re massively behind the game.
Please just go to sleep, as usual.
I just have to say that I didn’t think that I would see a Music Man quote today, and yet here we are.
I salute you, good sir. 🫡
Appreciate, sir!
Btw, check out Craig Bierko’s version of the classic. It’s the finest I’ve ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UnrCjw37SM
That’s not what they said at all?
Explain.
Reread the first four words of their comment. It’s not cryptic.
They were pointing out why she lost (being an out of touch defender of the status quo) and stating that being better than the alternative doesn’t automatically make her good.
Least bad ≠ good
(Bill) Clinton normalized the highest office being held by a person who unapologeticly abused their power dynamic to force sexual encounters on others.
Edit: Or maybe you meant Hilary, sorry.
In that case, yes. She was clearly the superior shit sandwich between the two with enough funding to buy the election.