2017 impeachment - because it's never too early

[Zanza]

My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.

You way overshot your target then.

Does that stuff even happen in Poland?

Quite frankly, one would think one would worry more about one's own faggot ass in the politically hostile environment of one's own faggot-hating country than what one reads about happening at, say, UCLA, on the internet.  If one were so inclined.

No idea if it happens in Poland and no idea why Marty seems to fascinated by certain aspects of American public discourse and yet sometimes rather ignorant about other particularities of America.

[Hamilcar]

Sorry all you white people look alike.

It's ok. 

[KRonn]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

[LaCroix]

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think hillary was always going to lose against trump, and that's what "she had a good campaign, but she was a terrible candidate" implies.

[Berkut]

How much of there not being a viable alternative to Clinton was a very concerted and conscious effort by the Clinton power bloc within the DNC to make sure another "Obama" was not allowed to have any prominence for the last eight years?

[derspiess]

It was Her Turn.

[Zanza]

My perception from an ocean afar was always that American parties due to their primary system are much more open than our parties here in Europe where party leadership and candidacy for offices are always backroom deals among the powerful establishment of the parties.

It's strange that at a time where the Republican establishment looked completely powerless, the Democrats apparently had such a ultra-strong establishment to smother all candidates (other than Bernie).

My personal take is that both among the establishment and the rank and file of the Democratic party there were lots of people who didn't consider Hillary Clinton a terrible candidate but rather did consider her a good candidate. She was experienced, had a political record to show, reasonable policies worked out etc.

It's just that she could not translate that appeal into a sufficient number of votes in some swing states.

[garbon]

My personal take is that both among the establishment and the rank and file of the Democratic party there were lots of people who didn't consider Hillary Clinton a terrible candidate but rather did consider her a good candidate. She was experienced, had a political record to show, reasonable policies worked out etc.

It's just that she could not translate that appeal into a sufficient number of votes in some swing states.

Yeah but you're a foreigner!

[Razgovory]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

Bullshit.  Remember she ran in 2008 as well.  Why wasn't she "anointed" then?

[Valmy]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

It was her turn I guess. But it was her turn in 2008. In any case I am not optimistic the next Dem nominee will be acceptable to me despite BB's claim that she was 'hard left'.

[Valmy]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

Bullshit.  Remember she ran in 2008 as well.  Why wasn't she "anointed" then?

Because Obama was able to do what Sanders failed to do.

[The Brain]

People wanted change, and that's what they got. In their wallets.

[LaCroix]

hillary had a stronger case of being nominated post-SoS

[Razgovory]

Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate.  I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit.  The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her.  Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.

Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.

Bullshit.  Remember she ran in 2008 as well.  Why wasn't she "anointed" then?

Because Obama was able to do what Sanders failed to do.

If she was "anointed" she would have won anyway.  The fact remains that Clinton had a strong constituency in the Democratic party.  That's why she won.

[Berkut]

I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.

Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.

Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...

The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...