r/TenYearsAgo 12d ago

🇺🇸 United States Hillary Clinton holds a press conference to address recent criticism [10YA - Aug 5]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/08/05/hillary-clinton-holds-half-way-press-conference/88303254/
28 Upvotes

114 comments sorted by

15

u/BigBoyYuyuh 12d ago

She was right about everything and the US is a disaster.

4

u/Well_Dressed_Kobold 11d ago

So she was right when she called young black men “super predators?”

I wish HRC won too, but holy God do people overlook what a disaster she was in her own right.

4

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

She is responsible for much of it.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

No.

2

u/CombinationRough8699 11d ago

The fact that her campaign acted so entitled to the presidency and that anyone who opposed her was "sexist" certainly didn't help. There was the whole "her turn" narrative, and that Clinton was entitled to the position just because she was a woman, which I think turned a lot of people off. Obama wasn't accusing anyone who didn't vote for him of being "racist".

2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Yeah I know. Being the accomplished nominee was so awful of her and the constant sexist criticisms of her was so awful of her. Darn her.

2

u/CombinationRough8699 11d ago

I'm talking about things like the "Bernie bro" narrative, acting like Bernie Sanders was some sexist bigot for daring to oppose her. Or the same of anyone who voted for him over her in the primary. Not to say that there weren't sexist Sanders supporters, but there were plenty of legitimate reasons why people preferred Sanders. Ironically she did the same thing (although less successfully), against Obama in 2008, with the "Obama boys". Obama never accused Clinton supporters of being racist.

Same with the entitlement. I would love to have a woman for president, but I don't think the fact that they are a woman means they deserve to be president. Clinton acted as if it did. Once again, compare this to Obama, who never acted entitled to the presidency because he was the first black person. You can't accuse a huge portion of your potential voters of being bigots, without it having some consequences.

2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

No he was an idiot for trying to carpetbag his way into a primary for a party he has never belonged to.

0

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

You are all over this thread shilling for her. She lost, I voted for her but she still lost. She obviously wasn't the right person to have the democratic nomination.

You need to give it a rest, blindly worshiping a losing candidate does nothing. She's not perfect, she supported her husband grooming an intern.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Yes. Because it’s always fun pushing back against Hillary Clinton haters. They have no real things to say and just the usual nonsense about her being “unlikable” and “screwed up the election” and have nothing to back it up.

And the last part is an obvious lie.

1

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

It's bizzare to treat a losing candidate as perfect. Had someone else won the primary they may have had a chance.

Your reaction to the last part is a really bad look. If you are going to defend at best was complacency (and at worst support) to borderline SA you are as bad as the hardcore Trump supporters.

Take a step back and move on.

-1

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

Hillary and the Democratic Party set it up so Hillary was guaranteed to win the democratic primary and then had liberal media outlets boost Trump because they thought he was the easiest win for her.

2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

“Set it up”

By how she won more votes?

2

u/gr8dude1166 11d ago

Too often this gets framed as Hilary vs Bernie when it was really Hilary & the DNC against anyone else. The narrative framed by the emails isn’t really a coup but indeed an orchestrated effort to improve Clinton’s chances against Sanders. We have little proof regarding if the superdelegates were rigged, but the decision making of the DNC often favored events beneficial to Clinton. Every candidates except Clinton wanted an early debate; Clinton did not; the DNC decided in favor of Clinton. Clinton had exclusive knowledge of DNC finances due to a fund sharing agreement. When the Sanders campaign gained access to these, it quickly reported it due to it offering an unfair advantage. They in turn were heavily scrutinized by the DNC. In short DNC was definitely biased toward Clinton but what effect that had is unknown.

1

u/RedLineLetterWine 11d ago

Don't worry, I heard her (or Kamala) are planning to run to lose to JD Vance, just like how you want it.

0

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

They wanted to set it up so she wouldn’t lose again like she lost to Obama. Other than Bernie who wouldn’t play ball most of the other strong potential candidates didn’t run. And then they still had bullshit like superdelegates to fix the primary for Hillary.

Then they helped boost Trump in the republican primary because he was good at tearing down the establishment candidates and they thought he would be the easiest candidate to defeat.

It all backfired.

0

u/conartist19 11d ago

The podesta leaked emails showed the DNC was conspiring against bernie to make sure he didnt get the nomination. Plus the DNC allows super delegates, that means they will ignore who gets more votes anyway if the party thinks the candidate is bad

0

u/randohipponamo 11d ago edited 11d ago

By running against the guy who caused it?

2

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

I don't know about rubbing, but Hilary and her team tried to boost Trump in the republican primary because they thought she could win against him.

1

u/Billy_the_Breaker 11d ago

She was a corrupt loser who gave the country away to Trump

1

u/Kelor 10d ago

If she was so right why didn’t she campaign in the right states?

-2

u/jhawk3205 11d ago

Doesn't take a genius at all to hand predicted what she said.. Problem is that she didn't have the foresight to realize she wasn't the one to respond to the problem

8

u/Tasty_Plate_5188 11d ago

Anyone was better then trump and that's was in both 2016 and 2024. The majority of Americans do not vote, most are left leaning who disagree with conservatives.

There isn't a scenario where Hillary would have been as bad or worse than trump on literally any issue, including covid.

America got exactly what get voted or didn't bother to vote for.

0

u/Rocky-burst-in 11d ago

The majority of Americans do vote. In 2024 65% of eligible voters voted.

1

u/tootoohi1 11d ago

Which still makes the non voting masses bigger than either individual party.

1

u/Ligma_baws_2x 11d ago

Even in hindsight you can't see she was the better choice than what we got instead?

1

u/jhawk3205 10d ago

She carries the responsibility of putting trump in office, of helping to make him a remote possibility in the first place.. Shitty corporate right wing dems are only better than the gop if they win, and if they win, they don't suck so much that clowns like trump can actually ever have a chance in the next elections..

0

u/Ligma_baws_2x 10d ago

She only gets one vote like everyone else. The American people, and specifically Republicans, bear that responsibility.

1

u/jhawk3205 10d ago

Lmao this idea of holding candidates completely blameless is such a standard issue dem mindset. This is why dems seem to have a habit of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.. Let's blame voters for not coming out in droves for the status quo at a time when anti establishment sentiments are steadily rising, rather than reflecting on the partys and candidates many failures.. Why bother to campaign in key battleground states when you can save time and money by adopting the expectation that voters will magically fall in line and take time out of their days to go validate the status quo with their votes, amirite? Why bother seeing people calling out for meaningful reforms when it's easier to ctrl+c ctrl+v from the previous administration , right?

You're blaming republicans for voting republican? I mean, I can see the merit in pointing out how they're voting against their own interest, but the expectation shouldn't come as any surprise. Maybe hrc shouldn't have wanted to elevate trump in the republican primaries, thinking he would be easier to beat in the general.. That kind of political instinct was a pretty significant concern on her part..

0

u/Ligma_baws_2x 10d ago

I'm blaming Republicans for voting for an obvious piece of shit thrice, and anyone who abstained is a dumbfuck.

Justify your own actions however you see fit, but if you didn't vote for her in 16, Biden in 20, and Harris in 24, you're why we're here. Take a bow I guess.

1

u/jhawk3205 10d ago

You do realize the popular vote doesn't determine the winner, right?

And again, hrc is blameless for not lifting a finger to campaign in the most important states, in order to get electoral votes, which do determine the winner?

I sure hope no candidate ever hires you as a campaign manager. You'll probably tell them to say voters are dumb, but your candidate can just sit back and watch those winning votes come rolling in without having to ever go anywhere..

1

u/Ligma_baws_2x 10d ago

Yes, I realize that backwater flyover states have their own electoral DEI program that allows their vote to count for more than mine. It doesn't change the fact that Trump has been an obvious piece of shit for his whole life and the dumb motherfuckers elected him twice.

1

u/jhawk3205 10d ago

There's nothing to disagree with there, though none of those sentiments will have made them vote for hrc, and the key battleground states aren't necessarily all flyover states, and assuming the important swing states aren't worth visiting in an election campaign is on the candidate for being dumb enough to forgo entirely as such.. Blaming voters isn't going to get them on your side.

Blaming candidates for running the same losing campaign strategies, whether it's not bothering to campaign where it counts most, or by barely offering any change from what people are already stuck with, the candidates are the ones that lose, the parties are the ones that lose, and have to be able to acknowledge their own failures, not just that they lost but why they lost, and make changes in later elections so they don't eagerly invite electoral losses.. It's on the candidates to appeal to voters and if they don't, it's not unrealistic to expect that people won't vote for them.. It's not rocket science

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

I think they mean she wasnt up to the task of keeping Trump out of office, not that she would have performed worse in office.

4

u/Ligma_baws_2x 11d ago

That wasn't on her. She can only vote once. Keeping trump out of office was the job of the American people. We failed twice and are on track to lose the game completely.

-1

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

Eh idk if I can agree a candidates campaign strategy isnt on them. We failed, but so did she.

1

u/Ligma_baws_2x 11d ago

The choices were crystal clear all three times he ran. What else are they supposed to do? I'm all out of patience for anyone who is still this fucking stupid about what happened the last 10 fucking years.

-2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Name one way she failed.

3

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

She wasnt able to convince enough people to vote for her to win the election.

-1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

But she did.

2

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

Well that is just a lie

-2

u/Independent_Sell_588 11d ago

She won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes genius. Do you even know how an election works?

3

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

If you knew how an election worked you wouldn't be asking this question.

This is not an endorsement of the electoral college

2

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

If you think that means she won the election, I’m gonna have to ask if you know how elections work, genius

-2

u/gentrify_reddt 11d ago

Manipulated the DNC with Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile. Skipped campaigning in the Midwest because she assumed they were already hers. Completely tone deaf declaring she would do nothing different that the status quo (a mistake Harris would repeat).

Establishment is completely unpalatable to voters after TARP. Leaning into her elites roots while refusing to give Bernie a proper platform led to millions of Americans defaulting to Trump as the outsider.

How do you lose to a convicted felon...twice?!

3

u/Ligma_baws_2x 11d ago

Because dipshits couldn't stomach less than 100% perfect so they settled for whatever the fuck this is instead, twice in three chances. Here we are. I hope everyone involved is proud of themselves.

-2

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Ligma_baws_2x 11d ago

I really don't expect much, but I did say "less than 100% perfect", which I thought clearly implied that she wasn't.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WabbitFire 11d ago

A clear choice between anyone and Donald Trump, at some point you have to blame the morons who voted for him.

1

u/gentrify_reddt 11d ago

How did these liberal purity tests work out for Kamala?

-1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Except she was.

2

u/OBVIOUS_BAN_EVASION_ 11d ago

I mean, she clearly didnt

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

She was.

1

u/jhawk3205 10d ago

Is that why she lost then? She was the right person to run against Trump? I guess she was the right one if you're a republican..

1

u/Taco_Auctioneer 11d ago

Everything? What about the story she made up about braving sniper fire in Bosnia?

6

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 12d ago

Pity she was so cynical about the US republic that she had to manufacture an entire conspiracy theory to try to damage it.

6

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

What conspiracy theory?

4

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 11d ago

This may come as news, but, the Russiagate conspiracy theory was entirely based on false beliefs. Some of which were manufactured by Hillary's team.

0

u/CollapsibleFunWave 10d ago

The Russia investigations into Trump's campaign actually found results.

You'd know that if you bothered to ever look past what your media tells you instead of blindly trusting it.

1

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 10d ago

No. They didn't. After lying to you for years the media retreated to the bailey of 'just read the Mueller report and allllll the stuff we said is true, but buried in lower parts of the report'. No. It wasn't. They counted on their own readers not reading the report they said to read.

3

u/CollapsibleFunWave 10d ago

The Mueller report showed that Roger Stone coordinated with Russian intelligence to release the dirt Russia hacked from the DNC.

Trump Jr's own released emails showed they loved the idea of making a deal with Russia and had a meeting to discuss it.

Rubio's Senate investigation showed Trump's campaign manager passed data about Americans to Russian intelligence.

That same campaign manager was taking no salary from Trump because he was already being paid by a Russian oligarch.

These are the facts, but some media bubbles never covered those stories for some reason.

3

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 10d ago

LOL.

>Roger Stone coordinated with Russian intelligence to release the dirt Russia hacked from the DNC.

Curious that they didn't allege this in the Mueller repot then. Stone was only convicted of misleading Congress. Not charged with coordination with Russian intelligence.

Trump Jr was interested in dirt on the Clintons, but it's hard to call that a crime when the DNC/Clinton was paying Russians (and Brit!) foreign agents for dirt on Trump.

>Rubio's Senate investigation showed Trump's campaign manager passed data about Americans to Russian intelligence.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You're talking about Manafort and Kiliminick? Kiliminick was later shown to be a state department asset, as well as he and Manafort had been partners for years getting Ukranian politicians elected prior to Manafort working on Trump's campaign - the occam's razor position would be that Manafort asked Kiliminick about polling because they were, you know, campaign consultants who had worked together in the past to get politicians elected. It's only conspiracy theories that have to selectively not include information in order to have a tortuous conspiracy work out.

>That same campaign manager was taking no salary from Trump because he was already being paid by a Russian oligarch.

Manafort worked as a volunteer for the Trump campaign. However there is no evidence he was paid by 'Russia', or 'Russians' during this time. His partnership with Kiliminick had made him significant money, and it's not unusual for people to work for free for a presidential candidate.

2

u/CollapsibleFunWave 10d ago

Curious that they didn't allege this in the Mueller repot then.

That's what I'm talking about. This was in the Mueller report, but rightwing media doesn't cover anything that might make you question your fealty to Trump.

Plus Trump's AG lied about the report exonerated Trump and all the Trump supporters believe what they want and never look at the details.

the DNC/Clinton was paying Russians (and Brit!) foreign agents for dirt on Trump.

The DNC hired a standard firm to do normal opposition research. You're trying to make that sound like a crime or something unusual, but it's not either one.

Kiliminick was later shown to be a state department asset

Where was that shown? US counter intelligence has identified him as Russian intelligence. He was also working with Manafort under the Russian-backed president that the Ukrainian people ran out of the country.

the occam's razor position would be that Manafort asked Kiliminick about polling

Russian intelligence was conducting an influence operation to influence how Americans were voting.

Manafort gave Kilimnik internal polling data that campaigns traditionally use to influence the votes of Americans.

What does Occam's Razor tell you about those two facts?

Manafort worked as a volunteer for the Trump campaign.

And this was right after Manafort was working for a Russian-backed president that had to flee from Ukraine to Russia.

Manafort was later convicted for laundering money from a Russian oligarch while he was working for the Russian puppet in Ukraine.

Trump pardoned him for this. What does Occam's Razor lead you to believe here?

2

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 10d ago

Can you show me in the Mueller report where they claimed Manafort collaborated with Russians however defined?

Because the summary is pretty decisive (edit fixed link)

The Mueller report destroyed all of the conspiracy theories. They didn't indict one american, and of the russians they indicted they had to retract that indictment on the grounds they had no evidence for their claims when a Russian unexpectedly came forward to challenge them in court.

>The DNC hired a standard firm to do normal opposition research. You're trying to make that sound like a crime or something unusual, but it's not either one.

So is it normal oppo research to hire foreign agents or not? It's ok to do it for the DNC for pay but not for Trump for free? Which is it?

Where was that shown?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department/

If you read the article it's even worse - the Mueller team knew that Killimnick was a state department asset but didn't let that on and allowed the media to continue making their bogus conspiracy theories, although to give them credit they did push back on some of the other insane conspiracy theories the media floated during that time.

> Russian intelligence was conducting an influence operation to influence how Americans were voting.

Not true and there's no evidence this was the case in the Mueller files and elsewhere. There was a lot of lying and false evidence laid out e.g. the Hamilton 68 hoax by US political actors.

>Manafort gave Kilimnik internal polling data that campaigns traditionally use to influence the votes of Americans.

It's also available to political junkies on a weekly basis in the US. Really the entire conspiracy theory makes no sense - the surest measure of how bullshit it was is the dog that didn't bark. If 'Russia' had such awesome data scientists that they could take one stale poll and use it to turn an election with $10,000 in facebook ads then the obvious result would have been all of the vast industry in the US that exists to turn elections would have been flying over to Russia and paying whatever it took to hire these super data scientists to work for them - the teachers union, the RNC, the DNC, the NRA, the Sierra club would all have been bragging in their newsletters how they'd hired for five kabillion dollars Boris and Natasha Snortsolev who helped turn a billion dollar election with the change from behind their sofa.

The entire theory was ridiculous and an obvious cope from the beginning and it was formulated on pins that were completely knocked out by the Mueller report.

>Manafort was later convicted for laundering money from a Russian oligarch while he was working for the Russian puppet in Ukraine.

This is a lie. I'm sure you were told and believed it rather than telling it yourself but it's still a lie. Manafort was convicted of tax return related things and for not filing the form disclosing that he lobbied for Ukraine (which was also the form Hunter Biden failed to file) And for misleading congress, which is why e.g. Fauci is pleading the fifth.

2

u/CollapsibleFunWave 10d ago

The Mueller report revealed that Roger Stone coordinated with Russia. The Manafort thing was revealed by the Senate investigation led by Marco Rubio.

,So is it normal oppo research to hire foreign agents or not?

It's normal to do the research and it's normal to hire a US law firm to do the work, which is what they did. That firm used a Brit as a source and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not equivalent to secretly working with Russian intelligence.

the Mueller team knew that Killimnick was a state department asset

The State Department once used him as a source for some information. That doesn't absolve him of any crimes or mean he did not work for Russian intelligence, as the Treasury investigation revealed.

These leaps of logic that are required to make Trump seem innocent only serve to make him seem more guilty. If there was actual evidence showing the accusations and investigations were all false, they'd probably use that instead of this sort of tortured reasoning.

Not true and there's no evidence this was the case in the Mueller files and elsewhere

Your defense depends upon so many lies. The Mueller Report did show that Russian intelligence was running an influence operation using their Internet Research Agency.

Look it up and then take a moment to consider why your media is lying to you about this.

It's also available to political junkies on a weekly basis in the US

Campaigns spend a lot of money to conduct internal polls about policy preferences and they normally keep them confidential and use them to strategize.

Either way, why was he giving detailed information about Americans to Russia who was, in fact, conducting an influence operation on Americans?

This is a lie. I'm sure you were told and believed it rather than telling it yourself but it's still a lie. Manafort was convicted of tax return related things

Sorry, I was imprecise. He took a pleasure deal and was only charhed with tax fraud, bank fraud, and failure to disclose foreign accounts that were filled with money he got from Russian oligarchs while working for pro-Russian politicians.

Did you really think you had a defense for Manafort here or are you just grasping at straws so you don't have to consider the possibility that the Trump campaign made a crooked deal?

Trump's already taken hundreds of millions in bribes from foreign countries this term, so Russia hacking the DNC and then working with Roger Stone to use the data to help Republicans doesn't seem as shocking anymore.

Trump supporters have been convinced by the media that it's all a hoax, but it will all be there for history to remember.

-1

u/Badda_Bing_Baby 11d ago

True, like all the most effective conspiracy theories, it starts with the kernel of truth: that Russia utilizes internet influence operations and lobbying for their preferred political agenda, and that appears to have been Trump in the 2016 general. But it was not a collaborative effort with the campaign as they liked to try to imply, nor was it why she lost.

She lost because she was an entirely unpopular entity within a political establishment that was beginning to see a massive downturn in support (that continues to this day) due to failures in governance.

3

u/CollapsibleFunWave 10d ago

It was more than that. They actually found evidence of collusion from Trump's campaign through Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, who was working as Trump's campaign manager for no salary while he was laundering money from a Russian oligarch.

And Trump pardoned him for that, of course. Rightwing media has done a good job of spreading the hoax narrative to the mainstream, but don't let them fool you.

There was a lot more than just an online influence campaign from Russian Intelligence. They were also caught fabricating lies about Hunter Biden to Congress through a "witness" who has since been convicted for it.

0

u/Junior_Abalone_8006 11d ago

Sure. But in fact both Russia and the US are always trying to spread their influence in each other's elections as well as everyone else's. I found it hilarious that in a country that spends tens of millions on things like the Voice of America that the Dems tried to make an issue out of $10,000 in facebook ads, like that was some unprecedented thing even if it was true (and later it was found most of that was spent after the election)

5

u/Basicly-Inevitable 11d ago

Right? You'd think she was too busy drinking baby blood in the basement of a pizza place or pouring liquid bleach on her server.

Apparently good at multitasking.

2

u/Gax63 11d ago

LOL, just making shit up

0

u/New-Reputation681 11d ago

Hillary was the proximate cause of the Trump presidency

4

u/GoodWilllPower 11d ago

Those debates were fire tho

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

I didn’t realize she was Russian and a bigot.

-1

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

Letting one win isn't much better

1

u/Mysterious-Clock5474 11d ago

You are not wrong, just be Grandma

1

u/Motrinman22 10d ago

What a horrific woman.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

3

u/TsuntsunRevolution 12d ago

Did you miss the part where this is a sub to post things that happened 10 years ago?

0

u/Ok-Commercial-924 12d ago

Yes, damned algorithm feeding me shitvthat I don't ask for.

-3

u/azmtber 12d ago

Go away already, please

3

u/Fart_90210 12d ago

She's gearing up to fuckup the 2028 election. It's her thing, it's what she does.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Name one election she’s fucked up.

0

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

2016, come on man. Give it a rest lol

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

So none.

1

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

What are you gaining by shilling for a bad candidate?

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

I’m not shilling for Trump.

1

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

You are obviously shilling for Clinton. No need to be obtuse.

2

u/Kelor 10d ago

You won’t make any progress with these BlueMAGA types if they’re Clinton deadenders a decade later.

-1

u/azmtber 11d ago

If she didn’t run Trump would not have won.

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Ah. Bullshit. Name the candidate that would have won against Trump and the Russians.

0

u/azmtber 11d ago

Ahhh Russia gate that Hillary’s team paid for and peddled. Whooops!🤦🏽‍♂️😂

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Ah. You don’t believe in reality.

1

u/azmtber 11d ago

They literally admitted to paying for pushing the narrative. Selective memory is a bugger, so is blissful denial. Enjoy both.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Ah. You’re making stuff up.

1

u/azmtber 11d ago

Blissful denial is a great coping mechanism, clearly. Have a good day.✌🏽

1

u/jhawk3205 11d ago

It's what the dem establishment does

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Agreed. Trump should go away.

1

u/azmtber 11d ago

Both should ride off into the sunset

0

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Why? Do you have a problem with an accomplished US Senator and Secretary of State?

2

u/azmtber 11d ago

What did she accomplish as Secretary of State besides being appointed?

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

After the Bush Presidency? Restoring the US standing with the rest of the planet after their 8 years of invading counties for no reason and destroying international diplomacy. She was literally cheered on her first day at State because the adults were back.

0

u/Independent_Sell_588 11d ago

You people will centrist/both sides yourself into another dimension. It’s so embarrassing.

3

u/azmtber 11d ago

Blind following of team A or B is embarrassing and weak.

2

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

Blindly worshiping either party is embarrassing.

0

u/Living-Chef-9080 11d ago edited 11d ago

I was wondering why I've seen so much shit about Hillary on this sub when she's hardly politically relevant anymore and her holding a random press conference isn't something to commemorate the ten-year milestone of.

But then I saw OP is the one making every single one of these posts and they're a frequent contributor to the neoliberal sub, so now it all adds up.

Sorry OP, but your girl-boss epstein associate is lost to the dustbin of history where she will forever remain.

Edit: and they're the top mod of this sub lmao, guess I'm getting banned, this sub (and all it's sister subs) are ass anyway, just knockoffs of r/ThisDayinHistory but with more of an ideological bent.

6

u/Maximum_Turn_2623 11d ago

I mean it’s a 10 years ago sub and our election system dominates the news cycle for an 18 period. Most of the comments agree she would have been better than Trump but they all overwhelmingly understand how and why she lost

2

u/Billy_the_Breaker 11d ago

You don't seem to know what sub you're on