Hillary has 30 years experience at being a crook, and that's about it. Her and Bill and their foundation have been crooked since ...forever.
When you have a crooked candidate, ya can't really take anything they say or put on a website as a valid platform.

Hillary stole from the DNC and broke laws to do it. Then broke more laws by using funds she wasn't even allowed to use, by law.
So which part of her platform was... real?

Plus the MSM was so biased even boomers talked about the fake news meme

/e no offense, #NotAllGrandpas etc

This post was edited by tonerbond on Apr 20 2018 03:55pm

Haven't we all been over this 500 times since before even the election happened? Hillary ran the least policy focused campaign in US history, and the majority of her advertising and virtually all her messaging was about anti-Trump. Trump's campaign was maybe slightly above average on negativity compared to normal campaigns, I'd say the ratios in that graph are more or less representative, but Hillary's stuck out as an extreme outlier compared to every previous campaign.
Hillary did the normal waffling routine on tepid policies that she both supported and opposed, the kind of 'vague CJ reform, vague economic policies, vague social justice, vague foreign policy' etc etc
About the only specific policy issue she presented was tax credits for job retraining for workers whos jobs that get shipped overseas. Not a very popular idea.

But the spending and even the debate time don't get to the core of the messaging. For anyone who watched the 2016 election, it was clear what messages the two campaigns were sending: Trump talked about building the wall, ending TPP, ending NAFTA, deregulating, putting tariffs on China, repealing and replacing Obamacare, major infrastructure stimulus, etc etc. He had specific policy proposals, a lot of them, and made big promises. He's delivered on some, abandoned some, betrayed some, delayed some. But he certainly had an agenda. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign messaging was almost entire about Trump: Pussygrabbing, Khizr Khan, calling Trump islamophobic, calling Trump racist, calling Trump a russian asset, calling Trump sexist, bringing up her very own bimbo eruption against him, accusing him of mocking a disabled reporter. The list went on and on. Hillary's political strategists made the conscious point to abandon a policy-based campaign and instead go completely negative. And they tried it, and it failed. They tried to drag Trump down to Hillary's level on likeability indexes, but lost on policy and still managed to fail to smear him enough. As I've said a million times, they failed to undermine his appeal to masculinity as a billionaire playboy egotist, an image he intentionally crafted, and instead just wound up reinforcing it, which was an example of a campaign only reading the title of Karl Rove's book and not any of the strategy, they missed the 'attack the strength' part of a dirty campaign.

as one good source of evidence, Hillary's defunct youtube channel still exists;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLRYsOHrkk5qcIhtq033bLQ

the top videos are videos like this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hCIVB1xDhk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHGPbl-werw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCqFCCgU1xk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy8HRdlLGCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoLgsEMu1Y4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA5ZhyoaJec

Of those videos, I'd say about 50% of it is just direct attacks on Trump, 25% of it is social justice pandering, and 25% is desperate attempts to humanize Hillary by showing her interacting with mortal human bipedal fleshbags without retching.
Now, can we actually find any videos that talk about a specific policy proposal? There are plenty of non-substance videos equivocating about some social issue she's pandering to without any policy, like "Stand with Hillary Clinton in the fight for all LGBT Americans to be able to live, learn, work, and marry free from discrimination". Which meant fuck all, because Trump was already pro-gay marriage and Hillary didn't fall into the trap of shilling for trannies. There are some videos where she supports the status quo of existing programs like Obamacare, but doesn't make any actual proposals for how to fix it

So I'd say, try digging into that archive and count how many videos there are attacking Trump (its not all obvious from the titles) versus how many, if any, are concrete policy proposals to be equivalent to 'build a wall' or 'limit immigration' or 'repeal and replace obamacare'.
Thats the difference in messaging that can't be so readily quantified like the funding graph above, but it should have been clear to any reasonable observer of the 2016 election that Hillary's campaign was dominantly a negative smear on Trump

Ah yes, the powerful tranny lobby with their billions of dollars and overwhelming political power.

because Hillary's campaign team aren't complete idiots and knew that if they tried to take a position of defending trannies against Trump to actually stake out a policy position, they'd hemorrhage voters from it. The point being, she put out bland videos lacking substance that just obliquely championed a social cause without risking any skin by advocating policy positions. Her messaging was full of that. "I'm Hillary, I love muslims, look at me conspicuously wear this hjiab, your white guilt obligates you to vote for me or else you're racist". I watched the campaign closely and Hillary never staked any significant policies. She could say something like "I'm in favor of criminal justice reform" and link to some generic DNC page on it with watered down talking points she could completely ignore after the campaign, but she wasn't going out on a limb to say "I'm going to legalize weed".

her campaign was simply devoid of policy. There was a negative campaign against trump, and a pandering social issue campaign designed just to act as pro-hillary counterpoint to those smears on trump, but certainly not policy.

Debt free college, raising taxes on the rich, and CJ reform are not status quo. Status quo is keeping what we've got, or making small changes. Those proposals are big. Not universal healthcare big, or deporting every illegal immigrant big, but still significant.

Hillary ran on what she thought she could actually get done. I'm sure deep down she'd like it if America had a single-payer system... never going to happen in this political environment though. She was pragmatic, and that's not always exciting.



Are you arguing that America selects a president based on how practical and vetted their views are? Really?



I was asking for a source on this claim: 70% of her campaign spending was attack ads. I suppose you meant 70% of her ads were attack ones?

We've been over it, but clearly your arguments weren't convincing. All of us experienced the same campaign, and the notion that Trump was the one focused on policy and Hillary was the one focused on slinging mud seems silly to almost everyone here outside the cult. To be fair to her, she had to play in the sensationalist media environment too. Trump was getting covered all day every day for attacking her(or John McCain, gold star families, judges with Mexican heritage, etc), she had to get herself out there somehow.

I said earlier, Hillary's ads were more focused on attacking character than Trump's. Ads are only one aspect of a campaign though. Again, go watch a Hillary town hall, or rally, or any of the debates. She was obviously focused on policy. Whereas, Trump had the typical routine of mud slinging and simplistic one liners to hype up the crowd.

Calling Hillary's proposals vague just isn't true... she had policy papers on practically everything on her campaign site. Just because she couldn't package those proposals in simplistic one-liners doesn't mean they didn't exist. Again, what did I say? Trump won because dumb people tune out when a candidate actually talks policy.



The highest viewed videos on her youtube channel doesn't seem to be great evidence of what her overall campaign messaging was. The dislike:like ratio is 2:1, meaning the Trump cultists supplied 2/3 of the views because they got triggered.

Go look at a rally. Did you watch any of Hillary's at the time? I know CNN didn't televise hers... hmm, I wonder why? Maybe because Donald rambling up there and throwing verbal bombs is better television?

Did you watch the debates?

maybe because hillary's rallies were boring as fuck and nobody outside her die-hard followers wanted to seem them?!
trump's rallies were drawing big crowds, clinton's werent. so your argument that trump simply got more media coverage because the nature of his rallies made for better television than that of clinton's doesnt add up.

also note that trump created a huge groundswell of rural and/or white working-class support that materialized on election day. therefore, his rallies didnt just draw larger crowds because trump was the better entertainer than hillary; these people didnt just attend those rallies to be entertained - the groundswell on election day proves that trump convinced those people to actually go to the booth and vote for him.

do you really think all those uneducated rednecks who hadnt voted for many election cycles moved their fat and lazy asses to the voting booths only because they enjoyed trump the entertainer, without being convinced by his policies?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 21 2018 07:50am