Red Mosquito

Why am I not surprised that trag is still irrationally angry at HRC?

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why am I not surprised that trag is still irrationally angry at HRC?

She's a woman.

just kidding, trag.

Har har. No, I understand what's happening with Hillary. It's just pointless from all sides. Why is the GOP so keen to take down a woman who shouldn't even matter in the larger scope of things right now? Can't they just let her career die peacefully? Or if they do want to pursue some sort of legal case against her, fine, have at it; but the Dems shouldn't feel any sense of obligation to funnel dollars and precious talking point moments into her defense.

These investigations will really get in the way of Hillary and her quest to purchase all those nuclear warheads in the Ukraine.

I'll try to re-make my point more succinctly: Hillary's investigations are a source of vulnerability for the Dems precisely because they allow them to be. But if they just abandoned her, or at least relegated her to the fundraising sector of the party, then there would be no real opportunity for the GOP to continue to use her as a point of contention.

tragabigzanda wrote:I'll try to re-make my point more succinctly: Hillary's investigations are a source of vulnerability for the Dems precisely because they allow them to be. But if they just abandoned her, or at least relegated her to the fundraising sector of the party, then there would be no real opportunity for the GOP to continue to use her as a point of contention.

They will never let Hillary go. The dems lack of a single message begs for "well we aren't trump", and the republicans...well...everything....is "uh, hillary"

Trag is building a strawman. HRC isn't doing anything active in politics right now nor are the Democrats leaning on her for anything.

Also, nobody banished John Kerry to the scrap heap of history after he ran a shitty campaign against one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen.

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I'll try to re-make my point more succinctly: Hillary's investigations are a source of vulnerability for the Dems precisely because they allow them to be. But if they just abandoned her, or at least relegated her to the fundraising sector of the party, then there would be no real opportunity for the GOP to continue to use her as a point of contention.

They will never let Hillary go. The dems lack of a single message begs for "well we aren't trump", and the republicans...well...everything....is "uh, hillary"

I think the OLD dems will never let her go; I think the young blood is ready to be done with her.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Trag is building a strawman. HRC isn't doing anything active in politics right now nor are the Democrats leaning on her for anything.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Also, nobody banished John Kerry to the scrap heap of history after he ran a shitty campaign against one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen.

Come on. HRC may not be angling for votes anywhere, but she is clearly on the warpath to define her legacy and protect her narrative as a leader and champion of the Dems. She's taking up a fair amount of print and interview space, given the promo tour for her new book. And it robs the dems of opportunities for new, engaging headlines. Every Hillary headline is one less opportunity for a positive headline for the dems, and one more opportunity for the GOP to make the dems look foolish.

And John Kerry did the smart thing and went to work as the SoS. He wasn't shouting his mouth off about the election that he lost, not was he playing any sort of overtly divisive politics on the national stage; he simply took his years of service and knowledge to tackle a role for which he was well suited. HRC did the same thing after she lost to Obama, but she's taking a different tact now, and the dems need to send her on a vacation to Bermuda for several months or something.

First, how is a book tour any different than a lecture circuit, which you say she should do? Also, yeah, why isn't she taking a job at the State Department right now? She should really be doing that!

cutuphalfdead wrote:First, how is a book tour any different than a lecture circuit, which you say she should do? Also, yeah, why isn't she taking a job at the State Department right now? She should really be doing that!

1. A book tour puts her on the front page of national media, and she therefore becomes fair game for the GOP. A lecture circuit, by contrast, would most likely see her speaking to corporations and other organizations that identify and support with her pet causes; there's way less opportunity for the GOP to turn those sorts of appearances into something divisive.

2. Obviously I don't think she should take a role with the State Dept. But if she really want to continue to be engaged with the DNC, I think her core message should be "Here's how WE messed up in 2016, and here's how the party is going to change moving forward." Instead, her core message as of late has been "Here's how Bernie and Comey monkeywrenched my campaign..."

Strat wrote:The dems lack of a single message begs for "well we aren't trump", and the republicans...well...everything....is "uh, hillary"

I never get this.

LBGT rights.
Improved healthcare equity.
Expanded government support networks for the poor.
Racial equality.
Anti-terrorism.
Environmental standards and sustainable energy development.
Not giving $300 million Puerto Rico contracts to two-person companies from nowhere that "know a guy" in the administration.

I don't feel like there's a lot of disclarity about what the Democratic Party concerns itself with. Especially compared to a party that is small government except lol and pro-individual rights unless a teenager wants an abortion and pro-Christian only when those tools are in the room (jack-off motion) and by all accounts is STILL RELYING ON THE OBAMA ADMIN'S STRATEGY on the ground in the Mideast.

That's the party that's becoming less clearly defined for me.

This is a ridiculous argument. I'm not a big Clinton proponent or anything, but the only reason this is happening is because Republicans feel on safer ground bashing Clinton than supporting Trump. Book tour, lecture circuit, arena rock tour, whatever she's doing, that's the motivation behind this. It has far more to do with where Republicans are at than anything she or anyone else is doing.

Trag's gonna find a way to blame the woman anyway.

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:The dems lack of a single message begs for "well we aren't trump", and the republicans...well...everything....is "uh, hillary"

I never get this.

LBGT rights.
Improved healthcare equity.
Expanded government support networks for the poor.
Racial equality.
Anti-terrorism.
Environmental standards and sustainable energy development.
Not giving $300 million Puerto Rico contracts to two-person companies from nowhere that "know a guy" in the administration.

I don't feel like there's a lot of disclarity about what the Democratic Party concerns itself with. Especially compared to a party that is small government except lol and pro-individual rights unless a teenager wants an abortion and pro-Christian only when those tools are in the room (jack-off motion) and by all accounts is STILL RELYING ON THE OBAMA ADMIN'S STRATEGY on the ground in the Mideast.

That's the party that's becoming less clearly defined for me.

LBGT rights: They are understandably scared to align themselves so closely with identity politics again.

Improved healthcare equity: Again, it's tough to tout your plan for change when your last plan didn't go over very smoothly.

Expanded government support networks for the poor: Yep, this is a good one, but it falls under the larger umbrella of income inequality, along with corporate crime, tax rates, and the like. And the dems seem lost in the woods here, because it's tough for them to spin a narrative that casts them as friends of the poor when they are in bed with the big corporations to roughly the same extent as the GOP.

Racial equality: I think this one is a slippery slope, because it could potentially further bolster the Alt-Right bozos. Every argument for affirmative action-type measures becomes fodder for the "they took our jerbs!" crowd.

Anti-terrorism: This should pretty easily be a bi-partisan issue, but sure, there may be some potential here.

Environmental standards and sustainable energy development: This is the magic bullet issue, IMO. It's pretty tough to refute science, no matter how hard the GOP may try. If they just continued to hammer this message to death, and learn how to relate it to the other issues (income inequality, feminism, social justice, etc) I think they'd begin to see traction.

Not giving $300 million Puerto Rico contracts to two-person companies from nowhere that "know a guy" in the administration: It's a small story that is emblematic to larger issues within the GOP, but it's a pretty easy pivot for the GOP to counter any charges with something like "This MT company is going to make Puerto Rico win all over the place, they'll be so tired of winning..."

cutuphalfdead wrote:Trag's gonna find a way to blame the woman anyway.

Stop it, this is pissing me off. I've voiced my support for Amanda Curtis, Kamala Harris, and Frederic Wilson within the last 30 minutes.

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Trag's gonna find a way to blame the woman anyway.

Stop it, this is pissing me off. I've voiced my support for Amanda Curtis, Kamala Harris, and Frederic Wilson within the last 30 minutes.

I'm just saying you've established a certain pattern during your time with us.

digster wrote:This is a ridiculous argument. I'm not a big Clinton proponent or anything, but the only reason this is happening is because Republicans feel on safer ground bashing Clinton than supporting Trump. Book tour, lecture circuit, arena rock tour, whatever she's doing, that's the motivation behind this. It has far more to do with where Republicans are at than anything she or anyone else is doing.

Bingo! She's a liability because she's an easy target, and an easy pivot from the monster in the WH.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Trag's gonna find a way to blame the woman anyway.

Stop it, this is pissing me off. I've voiced my support for Amanda Curtis, Kamala Harris, and Frederic Wilson within the last 30 minutes.

I'm just saying you've established a certain pattern during your time with us.

1. I've take issue with women who do porn and prostitutes (I see very little difference in their chosen vocations); I've also defended sex workers.

2. I've suggested that Gwyneth Paltrow had more power, and therefore a certain responsibility, to protect women working in the backline positions in Hollywood, not to mention child actors.

RM's good for a joke and all that, but in all honesty I am beginning to resent the "Trag is a misogynist" joke because it's not true and it makes me angry to see it in print.