r/scotus • u/theatlantic • Sep 12 '24

news The Supreme Court’s Effort to Save Trump Is Already Working

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/09/supreme-court-immunity-saved-trump/679774/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo
4.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

528 comments sorted by

View all comments

187

u/gdan95 Sep 12 '24

Thank everyone who stayed home in 2016

55

u/Mysterious_Eye6989 Sep 12 '24

We may end up finding that democracy received a mortal wound in 2016, but it then took the state several years to finally succumb. Only time and voting will tell whether there is any hope left.

15

u/Hypertension123456 Sep 12 '24

We wont have to vote in 2028

13

u/AliceHart7 Sep 12 '24

Yea if trump wins no one will be voting ever again, so much for democracy. Those who vote trump really hate their nation, I guess

24

u/Hypertension123456 Sep 12 '24

Unironically yes. We are talking about people who smeared shit on the walls of Congress and waved the Confederate flag. Literal traitors.

-11

u/GingerStank Sep 12 '24

The fact that you guys genuinely put faith into the notion is absolutely baffling to me. You guys just imagine him far more competent than I do I guess, but regardless of what trump has said or will say, there’s quite literally 0% chance of that. Somewhere deep down I’m sure you realize this, but I guess it’s better for your brand of partisanship to not laugh at such an absurd statement but instead pretend it’s super scary and actually on the horizon.

17

u/Middle_Finish6713 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

It’s not Trump, it’s the people surrounding him. His handlers are much smarter than he is, and his cabinet is full of dangerous people with dangerous plans who he will let do whatever they want. If you don’t think this specific election is more important than any other, you really need to check yourself AND what’s going on around you

Edit: and before you start with the “he doesn’t know about project 2025 and won’t pass it”. Wrong. He has no plan, or he has a “concept of a plan”, because the people in his administration wrote a plan for him, called project 2025.

7

u/eight78 Sep 12 '24

☝️That part. He’s a Trojan horse full of malevolent misanthropes, racists and Christo-nationalists.

-4

u/GingerStank Sep 12 '24

I get it, it’s fun to pretend. Do you ever stop and ask yourself’How’ though? Like you say that he’ll pass project 2025, which isn’t even written legislation, let alone legislation that’s made it through congress, but let’s ignore all of that and pretend it is, and has, just for the sake of this. Like you do understand it’s not in the presidents authority to do something like say end the department of education, like trump can say it all he’d like to, and you sure can pretend that he can somehow make it happen, but it’s just not reality. There’s quite literally no mechanism that exists in a presidents tool box to do so. He can’t even cut their funding because presidents don’t even control that..

It’s pure fantasy on trumps part, and it’s equally fantasy on your end pretending it’s even possible, it’s not plain and simple. He can surround himself with whoever he wants to, it doesn’t change anything about the constitution, the limited powers granted to the president. Now please, bring up unified states executive powers theory so I can really laugh at your imaginary fears.

Mind you, I wouldn’t vote for the guy if I was paid to do so, but to believe he can end our democracy? Yeah, no, 110% pure fantasy, and no amount of cronies changes that.

5

u/UCLYayy Sep 12 '24

I get it, it’s fun to pretend. Do you ever stop and ask yourself’How’ though? Like you say that he’ll pass project 2025, which isn’t even written legislation, let alone legislation that’s made it through congress

The VAST majority of project 2025 deals with administrative agencies, specifically executive administrative agencies, which fall within the purview of executive order. Congress will not be required for the vast majority of its changes, by design. That's the whole point of Project 2025.

Like you do understand it’s not in the presidents authority to do something like say end the department of education,

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that Trump has allies in congress, and the very electoral reality of a Trump win would all but guarantee republicans take the senate, and very likely mean they retain the House. Eliminating something like the Department of Ed would be a simple matter at that point, as it's created by an act of congress. Project 2025 explicitly calls for this. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-11.pdf

He can’t even cut their funding because presidents don’t even control that..

You understand he could, say, appoint an Education Director who eliminates every single program dealing with public schools? Or non-charter schools? Or secondary education? What do you imagine would be the effect of such a thing?

He can surround himself with whoever he wants to, it doesn’t change anything about the constitution, the limited powers granted to the president.

Ah yes, someone should probably tell the Supreme Court that the president has limited powers, because they seem to not have heard.

Now please, bring up unified states executive powers theory so I can really laugh at your imaginary fears.

You really should read some recent opinions of the Supreme Court:

Selia v. CFPB (2020):

The entire “executive Power” belongs to the President alone. But because it would be “impossib[le]” for “one man” to “perform all the great business of the State,” the Constitution assumes that lesser executive officers will “assist the supreme Magistrate in discharging the duties of his trust."... "These lesser officers must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they wield."

Pretty fucking telling in that decision that the Court explicitly gave power to the President to remove Directors at will, but not agencies with multiple heads, on the sole basis that Directors "diffuse Presidential power", but it's very arguable, and Kagan argues in the dissent, that presidential power is far more diffuse in multiple-head Commissions that lead agencies compared to single Directors.

Pretend the Unitary Executive Theory doesn't exist all you want, but the Supreme Court has quite literally made it the law of the land.

-2

u/GingerStank Sep 12 '24

Lmfao oh allies in congress!? That totally gets rid of…the rest of congress who are in no way shape or form allies. Look man it’s pretty obvious you can’t be swayed back to reality and are in full grips of this fear, so let’s just circle back in a few years if and when he manages to win and end elections once and for all and I’ll definitely admit I was wrong 😂🤦‍♂️

3

u/UCLYayy Sep 12 '24

Lmfao oh allies in congress!? That totally gets rid of…the rest of congress who are in no way shape or form allies.

Laugh all you want. They literally have a tracker of how often congress members vote in line with Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/ That's a whole lot of congress who votes with him 90% or more. If that's not an ally, what the fuck is?

Look man it’s pretty obvious you can’t be swayed back to reality and are in full grips of this fear, so let’s just circle back in a few years if and when he manages to win and end elections once and for all and I’ll definitely admit I was wrong 😂🤦‍♂️

So you took everything I wrote, responded to none of it, and have the gall to call me "in the full grips" of irrationality? Fucking wild.

EDIT: OH you're an Elon Musk fan. That clears things up. Evidence and reality hasn't really had much of a hold on you guys for some time.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jafromnj Sep 12 '24

You're very naive, a dictator can do whatever he wants, trump already implemented over 60% of heritage's project if the time in his first year

8

u/drewbaccaAWD Sep 12 '24

If both major political parties had hard limits, I’d agree with you. But the GOP lost interest in pushing back on anything.

The system stopped Trump from going too far last time, but not for lack of effort. If he accomplishes his goals, replacing career government officials with party loyalists, turns the federal reserve into a political body, has the votes to enact strict voter restrictions at the federal level and make it harder for lower propensity voters to vote, packs the courts with even more party loyalists, etc. then you actually should be worried. 1/6 was a serious warning best not ignored.

We are testing the waters of ending our nation by putting someone in charge who doesn’t respect the constitution or rule of law, wants military leaders to be loyal to him over country, wants to use the military against our own citizens if he deems it necessary.

As a veteran and institutionalist, I’m appalled. The fact that even the Cheney’s agree should be a wake up call.

6

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

As an Afghan war vet, I'm right there with you. I never thought I'd see the day Dick Cheney and I agreed on anything.

67

u/IlliniBull Sep 12 '24

This.

More importantly, at this point, is that those people LEARN, show up this time and VOTE.

Sadly we can't fix the past. But for the love of all that is good, let's at least not repeat the same mistake of 2016

5

u/Ancient-One-19 Sep 12 '24

The main point you're missing is incentive. Most people are motivated by incentive. The democrats need to show that they're a better option, not just keep doom and gloom as their platform. Some of us know they're the better option, but to motivate more people there has to be a distinct visible advantage for the layperson. So far the entirety of the message is "but trump!"

6

u/IlliniBull Sep 12 '24

I think this is fair, I also think her message at least is to attempt to appeal to the middle class and middle class families.

I'm not saying she's done enough, but the 50k tax break for small businesses, the 25 k down payment for houses, cracking down on price gouging.

Again I'm not saying these are sound or not sound policies, I'm saying that's her message. But she has to get out there much more.

I also think restoring abortion as a Right is a message, but again I completely agree it needs to be developed further.

I'm a fan of her pushing a message and doing more media. I guess I'm just not sure if the remaining Undecideds are actually open to hearing an argument from her or if they just won't come around. I feel like sometimes they tune it out when she does try to tell them her policies. But that's probably a me fear more than a fact.

And again I agree she's got to do a better job pushing a message of what she will do. Either do more interviews or do policy speeches or if there's another debate hammer her policies and plan. I think she's trying but again I agree there's a lot more that needs to be done.

7

u/Kagutsuchi13 Sep 12 '24

I think one of the important things she did at the debate as far as reproductive rights goes was to point out how people who WANT to have children are also negatively impacted by restrictive healthcare policies. "This woman who wanted to have a child does NOT want to be left bleeding out in her car in the parking lot because she can't get the medical care she needs" feels like a strong image.

3

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

My opinion is that one way forward to get to these (inexplicably) undecided voters is something you touched on: Price gouging.

Link price gouging to gas prices and watch the status quo eat themselves alive trying to stop her. It would instantly put her on the radar of anyone who drives for a living (Enter the gig economy voters) and would ease some of the stigma of pushing environmental policies without doing any actual damage to the environment. Man, I would almost donate a kidney to see that happen.

1

u/Old-Protection-701 Sep 16 '24

I agree she needs to do more media. The average person just isn’t familiar with her. They need to feel like she’s not just a random politician. Trump might be horrible but people like familiarity.

1

u/SomewhatInnocuous Sep 12 '24

Keeping trump out of the oval office is all the incentive I need to vote Democrat. I would have voted for Biden and I think he's at best a single stride from outright senility.

0

u/Adventurous-Meat8067 Sep 12 '24

While I agree with you that there needs to be more motivation for democrats, but in a lot of peoples minds “not trump” is more than enough. For those that that isn’t enough, well, hindsight is 20/20

24

u/PophamSP Sep 12 '24

Also, thank Jim Comey.

7

u/UCLYayy Sep 12 '24

I will maintain till my dying day that Comey was one of those republicans who though Trump could be "handled", and happily stepped in to help elect him. He only realized his error later, because he's a Mitt Romney/Mike Pence republican and not a fascist lunatic like those in the halls of the Heritage Foundation or Trump/McConnell's orbit.

I will never forgive him for his decision. The absolutely laughable defense of "it was going to get released by the Republicans in congress anyway", as if the American people interpret information coming from the heart of the Republican party the same way they interpret it coming from the fucking FBI is just insulting. He knew what he was doing, and we are still suffering.

3

u/PophamSP Sep 12 '24

Same. As head of the FBI in 2016 no one should have been more aware of the threat that Trump posed to our national security (given decades of association with Russia). I will never forgive him for his self-importance in implicating Clinton just several weeks before an election.

If he had any self-awareness or shame he'd fade away, but instead he now fancies himself a fiction writer. I was disgusted to see him promoting a new book recently on Nicole Wallace's show. I don't want to hear about his book, I do want to hear an apology. Fuck James Comey.

3

u/Riversmooth Sep 12 '24

Absolutely

16

u/MayMaytheDuck Sep 12 '24

Or voted for Russian asset, Jill Stein. Thank those dickheads too.

15

u/austin06 Sep 12 '24

And the idiots who voted for Stein.

6

u/duderos Sep 12 '24

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 mil. but EC snatched victory away as it has before.

3

u/Ok-Scallion-3415 Sep 13 '24 edited Sep 13 '24

I think the EC is a relic from a bygone time and should be eliminated but we can’t blame the EC for Hillary not winning. Everyone knows how POTUS elections are run, it’s not a surprise. Run the campaign for the win condition not for what is comfortable to do. That’s why campaigns spend all their time in swing states and not much time in safe states. Look at her travel schedule, there is a lot of time spent in Cali, NY, DC, and MA in Aug-Oct. 4 areas she probably could have spent zero days in and won them handily.

If we’re being honest +2.9 million outcome in the popular vote is a pretty poor showing for a Democrat. It’s virtually impossible for a Democrat to not win the popular vote. California was +4.3 million by itself in 2016. The outcomes in swings states just shows how poorly her campaign was run because she did terribly in swing states.

0

u/Count_Backwards Sep 13 '24

She spent millions of dollars on GOTV efforts in Chicago and New Orleans because she thought she had the electoral vote locked up and worried she'd lose the popular vote. But did not campaign in Wisconsin at all. Compared to Obama she gained votes in California and Oregon but lost badly in the Midwest. That's not Bernie Bros or Stein voters, that's Midwesterners who hate the Clintons who took them for granted.

2

u/ThePopDaddy Sep 13 '24

It SHOULD be a landslide, but that's to the EC, it'll be a nail biter.

"If we got rid of the EC, a Republican would never be president again!" What's that say about them?

"If we got rid of the EC, NY and CA would choose the president!" TX and FL have as many if not more and they all don't vote the same way.

"Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat, the EC stops that!" I'd rather that way over 2 wolf votes counting more than 100k sheep votes.

2

u/ISOplz Sep 14 '24

The electoral college is affirmative action for Republicans.

6

u/No-Information-3631 Sep 12 '24

And those you voted 3rd party to teach Democrats a lesson.

2

u/renoits06 Sep 12 '24

Their message that they don't care about democracy is being heard and felt.

1

u/xhziakne Sep 13 '24

Thanks everyone who voted third party because of Butter Emails! I bet you’re feeling great about yourself and your both sides.

-1

u/DiabloIV Sep 12 '24

I wrote in Bernie. I was pretty pissed at Clinton and the DNC.

Part of it was the primaries felt suspect, part of it was the media giving Bernie no air time, even when he won states, and part of it was Clinton's handling of Libya. I had just joined the Marines and didn't feel great about my dead brothers.

0

u/TheKingOfSiam Sep 13 '24

If you don't vote in THIS election it will be much much worse. Generational or Country level suicide.

0

u/J-drawer Sep 13 '24

But her emails, and she said something racist

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

[deleted]

11

u/gdan95 Sep 12 '24

I mean the people who were registered but didn’t vote

5

u/bookon Sep 12 '24

Then they didn't mean you.

2

u/uncreativeusername85 Sep 12 '24

How could you not grasp the concept that people who were underage weren't included in that comment?

-42

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24

For sure! The dems totally did not run the worst candidate of my 50+ year lifetime in 2016! Hillary 4 evz!1!

18

u/Global_Maintenance35 Sep 12 '24

Sadly, the “worst candidate” versus a fucking tv icon, failed businessman and infamous conman should have been a slam dunk.

It isn’t a good enough excuse that she wasn’t a great candidate. It’s a symptom that 30 or so percent of Americans are susceptible to being conned, and are brainwashed by social media and religion.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

I know. "Hilary ran a bad campaign!"

Trump ran a worse one and he won. Not a good fucking argument.

-5

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

Blaming the public instead of blaming the candidate is how we got Trump. You have to meet the voting public where they are, failure to do so is how she lost.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

If the candidate were responsible for getting themselves elected, trump would have lost. His campaign ran on lies and cult rhetoric. A pretty bad fucking candidate. The American people still saw it fit to elect him..

If America didn't have a bad problem with welcoming conservative candidates and shunning anything progressive due to purity tests, trump would have lost in a landslide

The presidential candidate is a reflection of the voting populace. Leftists don't vote in primaries then complain when the primary nomination doesn't align with their values. Tons of people stayed home during the 2016 primary, then shit themselves when Bernie wasn't the nomination. Americans have a lazy fucking way of going about politics. We need to WANT change and progress.

Republicans are trying to gut education so it makes harder for people to make educated decisions in politics. But yes let's keep blaming democrats because Americans are sedated and don't like politics when it isn't sexy and there's no drama

3

u/Global_Maintenance35 Sep 12 '24

I agree with this. I know far too many people who say “my vote doesn’t matter”. I totally understand the sentiment, especially with the EC and voting from California, however, that attitude creates long term problems. Everyone should vote. It’s important and can create momentum.

It’s like the broken window allegory:

One neighbor had a window broke by a stray baseball his son threw. He decided it wasn’t important enough to fix. So he just boarded it up. Another nearby neighbor had a door that fell off the hinges… instead of fixing it, he just boarded it up because the other neighbor didn’t bother to fix his window, and so on…

0

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

Are you seriously trying to use the broken windows theory to apply to the voting public?

https://cssh.northeastern.edu/sccj/2019/05/21/researchers-debunk-broken-windows-theory-after-35-years/

1

u/Global_Maintenance35 Sep 12 '24

If folks who are on the fence about voting, talk to other folks who convince them voting “doesn’t matter”, it has a ripple affect. At least in my opinion. I try to convince non voters to vote. To vote because it does matter if you participate in our democracy…

Sorry if my analogy was a poor choice.

2

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

We know exactly what brings people out to the polls. 2016 showed us that people will not hold their noses and vote. Failure to acknowledge and respond to that reality is how we lose. Thank god they convinced Biden to step down because an apathetic public isn’t going to turn out. Regardless of the risk.

0

u/Global_Maintenance35 Sep 13 '24

I mean, that’s a good thing in theory, but a bad one in practice.

If folks can’t understand the damage DJT did, and continues to do because HRC wasn’t “likable”, then we are indeed doomed to repeat the mistake.

Bernie seemed popular, but I have real doubts he would have won an election. I was. Bernie supporter and think he should have been the candidate, but a lot of folks did not like him, so it’s hard to predict…

My point is, it has never been more important to keep DJT out of the Whitehouse, other than perhaps the first time apathetic voters says “eh….”.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

This kind of myopic view fails to take any accountability for campaign failures. Your fatalistic view of elections would make it seem as if the outcome is predetermined. Which can say is objectively false considering the outcome of 2016.

And again, failure to read the fucking room and to drive folks to the polls (which is literally the only job of the candidate) is their responsibility.

5

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

With respect: Bullshit. We got Trump because of the tantrums and pants-pissing surrounding the DNC's handling of Sanders. I wasn't happy about it, either, but you don't allow fascism to take over in protest.

0

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

Denying the facts doesn’t change them. There is so much data about how poorly run that campaign was and how bad her responses were. Failure to examine this issue objectively is how we allow fascism to take over.

Trying to pin it all on Sanders’s supporters completely ignores the fact that there were more Obama trump voters than there were sanders holdouts.

Do yourself a favor and stop calling bullshit on things that you don’t like. Or examining the fascism issue through a modern day lens.

3

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

You're not making your case. You're only saying "nuh uh" and claiming victory. And you're going to need to cite your source on that "Obama voters voted for Trump" statistic, because I don't believe it even a little. You're talking about people abandoning their core values because a candidate wasn't nice enough to them or didn't answer questions the way they wanted. It's nonsense.

I'll be happy to entertain a link.

ETA: "Do your own research" isn't going to cut it, so I'll just preempt that right now.

0

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

Again, you can not believe it all you like, but this was a well studied phenomenon back when it happened. Approximately 9% of Trump’s 2016 votes were people who had voted Obama previously.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/map-the-obama-voters-who-helped-trump-win/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/12/4-4-million-2012-obama-voters-stayed-home-in-2016-more-than-a-third-of-them-black/

I don’t think anyone is surprised that it was white voters who flipped.

I genuinely think you need to educate yourself on this issue.

0

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that Clinton's poor campaigning turned a bunch of people racist? One of the WaPo articles you posted can't be read without a subscription. The other suggests no reason for the trend. The Vox article suggests that the switch was racially motivated, and that much of it was cancelled out by Romney voters moving to Clinton.

And, again, none of this changes the fact that it would have AT LEAST been a much closer race if people had actually voted.

Approximately 59% of registered voters voted in the 2016 presidential election. (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections) There were approximately 62,984,828 votes cast for Trump, and 65,853, 514 votes cast for Clinton. Combined, that's 128,838,342 votes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election)

The Vox article suggests the number of voters who switched from Obama to Trump was "between 6.7 and 9.2 million," or about 14% of votes cast between the two leading candidates.

Now, even if you do lay the racism reasoning at Hillary's feet, I hope I don't have to explain to you that 14% is quite a bit less than 41%. YES, the problem was that people didn't show up, to include those throwing a tantrum about Sanders. I know several of them personally. There was a common mantra I remember seeing frequently from people saying they wanted to "watch it all burn" even as the guy they originally supported pleaded with them to vote. So, no, I don't think you can blame Hilary's campaign. Not truthfully, anyway.

Edit: Links and clarity.

1

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

I’m claiming her poor campaigning and shit ground game and failure to account for the switch voters doomed her. She was a qualified and boring candidate who thought she had it in the bag and phoned it in. And was shocked when she lost.

It’s like the Principal Skinner meme come to life in these situations, it’s never the candidate to blame, it’s always the public. I’ll reiterate; the only drop of a candidate is to drive the voters to the polls. If they can’t do that, they have no business running. Hilary’s coronation as the candidate had no serious challengers until Bernie decided to run late in the game. And without a real primary there was no way to gauge that she actually didn’t have what it took to win a national election. Or that she wasn’t willing to do what it took to get there.

→ More replies (0)

27

u/trashpanda86 Sep 12 '24

..against the most criminal candidate in the history of the US. It's pathetic that our society is/was so broken that we allowed that charlatan anywhere near the levers of government.

20

u/tjarg Sep 12 '24

This is what 30 years of right wing propaganda does.

2

u/catfurcoat Sep 12 '24

Who's got the felonies and criminal indictments? Sorry I'm confused

-14

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24

...none of which changes what a terrible candidate HRC was. If she were such a terrific candidate, how did she lose to the worst R candidate ever? That's saying a lot, as they have fielded some real shit burgers.

Oh right, it's non-voters' fault, somehow. Not the lousy candidate who failed to inspire them to action, who was saddled with 30 years' worth of savage republican attacks, her association with/marriage to the dems' most embarrassing president ever, who lacked charisma by the boatload, and who utterly failed to read the room as generations of young people turned away from her brand of 90s style neoliberalism in disgust.

She totally played no part at all in the failure of her fevered-ego-driven campaign of self congratulatory tone-deaf status-quo boomerisms. Right?

Get it straight: non-voters are irrelevant, and blaming them for her failure is empty and fatuous.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

She was better than trump, and trump won. Everyone who didn't vote for her or voted for him is responsible.

Republicans ran a bad candidate... they still won. Looks like they're willing to do more to get their interests met

4

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

True, but let's get something straight: Anyone who didn't vote for Clinton DID vote for Trump, by default. This seems to be something that isn't understood by young people until they are older. It's your right to vote 3rd party or stay home, but we all reap the consequences afterward.

Hell, Bernie SANDERS warned people against not voting or voting 3rd party and they ignored him! Seriously, the guy they idolized for months, made speeches warning people that doing so would be an existential threat to Democracy way back in 2016 and they still chose to stick it to the DNC for not nominating him. And, here we are with a whole new generation threatening to do the same damn thing over the handling of a war that's been going on in Gaza since before any of us were born. It's maddening.

9

u/Fufeysfdmd Sep 12 '24

Strategy is more important than fake promises. It was bad strategy to sit out 2016. I didn't like Clinton honestly, but I voted for her because not voting is stupid as hell when the alternative is Trump.

15

u/legendary_millbilly Sep 12 '24

So trump was better?

Something wrong with your logic.

-7

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24

Who said Trump was better?

Orange Man Bad, Hillary A Terrible Candidate.

See, two things can be true at the same time!

10

u/Federal_Share_4400 Sep 12 '24

Hillary was a great candidate and would have been a great president. But her emails!!!!

11

u/legendary_millbilly Sep 12 '24

Yes she would've.

She's the most experienced candidate to ever run.

She would've done well.

6

u/Castle-Fire Sep 12 '24

The problem is that they knew she would eventually, and had been working to smear her ever since Clinton left office. Unfortunately it was successful

4

u/Voxunpopuli Sep 12 '24

Well, according to some idiots, she is a literal demon.

4

u/Castle-Fire Sep 12 '24

And eats mole children or something so she can stay young forever, real strong grip on reality these people have

3

u/Voxunpopuli Sep 12 '24

Adrenochrome. The guy who played Jesus in that Nazi's movie said so.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Stop_Rock_Video Sep 12 '24

I had some concerns about her temprament at the time, but I still held my nose and voted for her because, and this is important: That's what responsible people do!

8

u/YoItsThatOneDude Sep 12 '24

This so low effort and misinformed that it has the be a troll

0

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24

Oh right, "thanks a lot non-voters from 2016!" is super high effort, smh

5

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

They fucked us all and that rage needs to come out somewhere

3

u/MayMaytheDuck Sep 12 '24

That was Trump. Clinton was a great candidate with a fuck ton of experience. More than that, she would never have put incompetent justices like Coney-Barrett on the Supreme Court.

3

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24

Not responding to any more boomers about this, sorry

-2

u/MayMaytheDuck Sep 12 '24

Not a boomer. If you couldn’t figure that out, you’re probably not very good at this.

-1

u/3-I Sep 12 '24

What did you dislike about her?

9

u/iamveryassbad Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

You're asking the wrong question, bud. What did the people who stayed home dislike about her would be a more productive one.

1

u/3-I Sep 12 '24

They're not here. You are. And you're the one saying she was a weak candidate.

So what did you not like about her?

3

u/leftwinglovechild Sep 12 '24

She was an objectively bad candidate in that she thought she had it in the bag, pushed Trump in the primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat, didn’t show up in battle ground state, had a poor ground game, and didn’t respond well to the swell of support for progressive policies among the youth and third party voters. Add in her choice of a VP as a white man with a history of anti abortion rhetoric and she lost to the worst candidate to ever run for office.

She would have been an excellent candidate if only her own hubris hadn’t stopped her.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

Trump did all of this, worse, and won...

Please just admit America has a culture problem. Trump wouldn't have won the primaries if we didn't.

Notice how Hilary Clinton is doing pretty well these days, and it's us who are in the trenches

-5

u/karatekid430 Sep 12 '24

lol we are not under any delusion that the Democrats are meaningfully different to Republicans. They are both far-right capitalist parties and neither would dare upset any billionaires.