This is all your fault, Holla Forums. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST LET HILLDAWG WIN?

Maybe he's right. Maybe they weren't equally horrible choices. Clinton was the more horrible choice.

Clinton would be far worse since no one would be resisting her.

Trump appointed Mattis so it has a lot to do with him either way. Let's give credit where credit's due.

...

...

looks like he's creating jobs alright :^)

Does Trump know about the petrodollar?

This

I remember the same thing happened with Obama. Right after the beginning of his first term I remember a bunch of "Is Criticizing Obama Racist?" articles.

He probably knows it's only an issue to paranoid lolberts on zerohedge.

She needs four more years to right the ship. Aren't you a feminist?

...

What did she mean by this?

bizjournals.com/orlando/morning_call/2012/11/harris-corp-ceo-appointed-to-obama.html

Hillary was planing to install a Texas conservative judge in the supreme court.

She wanted the CEO of Starbucks as labor secretary who has the same views as the owner of Carl's Jr. She wanted a charter school advocate to head up the education department just like Betsy Davos. Goldman Sachs had picked most of the rest of her cabinet much like Trump.

She was given money by the Saudis and the Russians. Trump was given money by the Russians and the Saudis.

She wanted immediate boots on the ground in Syria.

She picked one of the biggest right to work advocates as her running mate. (Relevant to today's decision of the right to extend "right to work" laws nationally.)

She had a wishy washy stance on abortion and women's health.

She would not fight conservatives to keep Obama care.

Her candidacy would be the same but liberals and in between leftists would be asleep instead of putting pressure on her to change. She also made no positive promises which means she would feel no obligation to even pretend to change things like Trump might be inclined to. I doubt he will either, but at least on the surface he has to appear guilty about it.

Her pledges were all metaphors, and retarded ones at that 'build bridges not walls'. No you dumb bitch, he's talking about doing something to address an issue, whether it's the right one or not, you just told people your way to deal with the issue is to not bother and make a cheesy metaphor.That's why she lost

I honestly can't think of a single identifiable Clinton policy

I'm fairly sure she wanted to continue mass surveillance, continue bombing civilians, and continue giving hand-outs to big business. I guess those aren't really vote winners though.

...

"Never, ever" single payer is about as close as she got.

That is a beautiful comparison.

´´more of the same´´

...

...

Considering how bored I am at the moment, he almost has a point.
Had to choose between two evils:

If Hillary had made nuclear war official policy instead of general snipe then perhaps it'd have tipped me to her.

I can't really either. Abortion?
It just seemed like a very cynical campaign in which she expected to be handed the presidency like some kind of royalty.

So basically you'd act like a huge faggot either way.
Good to know.

her main motto was literal idpol "first woman president".

american politics are such a joke, the bourgeoisie must feel so secure waking up in the morning.

So secure, they have to make up bogeymen from scratch just to feel alive, like a television show that jumped the shark four seasons ago and Must Go On.

well they always have their own infighting, "national interests" is after all code for "interests of different bourg groups"

You forgot

This is the shit that drove me to this board.

please kill yourself, liberal

i don't understand people demonizing trump in this board.

trump is no one, nothing, just another face through which the ruling class exercise their power. he is no different than obama, hillary, clinton or any other bourg puppet

Agreed on the rest but find these two iffy. In fact it seems she was expecting cruise through on only these two issues for messaging reasons (not because she actually believed in them, obviously)

burgers having a difficult time freeing themselves from their two party political culture

wewie dewei

don't give yourself away as a Holla Forumstard so hard now, try to be more subtle it's more fun that way

nobody expects you to be okay with it, just honest about it

it's sad, especially coming from an "anarchist"

critique of figureheads (trump for example) instead of the system is meaningless, and plays right into the neo-liberal rhetoric

Yeah but let's be real, plenty of the types that frequent this board were up in arms over Obomba drones and police state shit when it was happening. So it's pretty fucking weird to be all "huehueheu I didn't hear you complain when Obama did it" which is tantamount to calling the person you're talking to a liberal from the get.

I am, I think if we go out of our way to point out "well it's been done before" every time something bad happens under Trump, then it really looks like we're just defending mr president.

Man I don't know. Seems like an awful good excuse to spread class consciousness.

This board has grown exponentially since then

No, it means we're pointing out the irrelevancy of Trump continuing it, as all leaders have done it.

Once again, you're a stupid burger in too deep in your own shit political culture

I did. I even told everyone here and other places to vote for her. Most famous left-wing people also did it. The edgelord "dude I don't vote for CAPITALISTS" is like 0.1% of the Left.

you think critiquing a figurehead instead of the system spreads class consciousness?

wew man you opened my eyes, and here i was thinking all those neo-liberal journalists were capitalists when in fact they were radical leftists critiquing ideology.

holy shit it's an

A C T U A L
L I B E R A L

the "i dont vote for capitalists" is like 70% of us by the way

liberals arent leftists
socdems barely so

Well since we're on Holla Forums and not /liberalpol/ let's just all do each other a favor and assume that the person didn't also like obama as the default until proven otherwise

When someone praises him then you can call them a liberal faggot and tell them to fuck off

.t Noam

She would have probably vetoed attempts to defund/dismantle Obamacare but her defense of it beyond that wouldn't go far and the Republicans have a veto proof majority so it wouldn't matter much.

Before her campaign she had flip flopped numerous times on the issue of choice over her 30 year career.

During the debates she had to list 94 thousand and one exceptions to her supporting of abortion. Bernie Sandman said he was pro-choice end of discussion. In the Podesta emails she said she still opposed gay marriage and abortion personally but that she was willing "to look past those" while in office.

She chose people and was going to choose more people in her cabinet that were anti-choice and who had voiced approval of a "religious exemption" for corporations in Obamacare's mandates. She had people in her cabinet that had expressed anti-planned parenthood sentiments.

People assumed that because she was a woman she would support women and women's issues. This is false as far as I can see with her policies and personal statements.

a-are you being serious? is this b8?

is that supposed to make us want to be like the famous celebrities or something?
Shes scum and you're a hypocritical cumstain for actually supporting her in any way, shape or form.

I have serious doubts that the votes would shift enough for her to win and not also change the republican majority but fair point on that one

Was actually curious about what her healthcare plan was since it seems like the only issue she ever gave a quarter of a fuck about. Not that it would've been any good

Ok even pretending for one second that hill wasn't trash, do you really think Holla Forums was the difference between winning and losing for her?

This has to be bait

I don't think it being continued is irrelevant at all. I think it's something that should not be continued, and should not be ignored.

I think I shouldn't have to justify hating the president of the united states on Holla Forums, I also think if you take these now very upset non-class conscious workers, and strike in this moment, you can make a lot more people who understand the problem is capitalism.
Do you not think we need an educated, angry working class? You gonna be a one man vanguard party?

That Trump is continuing it is irrelevant, it would be continued and should be ended no matter who is in power

I think the disconnect here is most people are in agreement that the government separately from its figureheads were always going to keep the surveillance state and that it should be ended regardless

Trump offers a unique opportunity to put an ugly, unfriendly face on the state though and raise both class consciousness and general awareness

Then let us not get defensive for him.

same as you shouldnt be defensive for the same state propping him in the past,

Hating something now doesn't mean I loved it in the past.

This really boils my blood. Huge, huge masses of people are increasingly desperate for something other than a fifth Bush term, so much so that they were willing to take the risk of electing a reality TV star with no government experience. Just let that sink in.

I'm half convinced that the Hillary cheerleaders are all crypto-commies deliberately trying to be as daft as humanly fucking possible as an accelerationist strategy.

Harris also makes radios for the military, don't be a dick. Plus, they just started handing out PRC-150s to non SF units like LRS and shit. I'm sure that has something to do with it. It is a sweet fucking radio.

why the fuck would porky shake things up when obama already struck the perfect balance of "fight wars kind of but not really, just enough to keep the military industrial complex engaged but not enough for anyone to be bothered to notice and do anything about it"

seriously they struck gold with american complacency and corruption why would she need to do anything differently? I seriously suspect that people sharing the nuclear war meme were retarded Holla Forumstards and people who knew they hated hillary but were too cucked by obama to hate her for anything he also did

Jill Stein said she was afraid of Hillary starting a war with Russia (although she might've been exposed to Holla Forums memes since they're all over twitter and she hangs around with weirdos).
were you even on social media when Assad liberated Alleppo? People were calling for outright intervention.
Liberals would eat it up just like conservatives did with Bush. They have no fucking principles.

I didn't say nuclear. But you can't deny that imperialist war has been ramping up in both scope and intensity for the past several years. Obama was the first president in US history to be at war for every single day of his eight year term, and he got in under a very strong anti-war platform.

The contradictions of capitalism lead inexorably to large-scale conflagrations of the sort we saw in the 20th century.

I just think it's a mischaracterization of the real problems with Hillary types to say that she was going to plunge the world into war. I'd almost welcome that as the better option then considering that war looks almost inevitable and it's pretty clear that something has to go very,very wrong for the majority of people to wake up and actually do something (as we've seen a fraction of this past week)

The real danger of Hillary (and Obama before her) was the complacency. The promise to keep things "basically ok enough" and relying on the apathy of the people to get what you want. The promise for "big change" which just ends up being some milquetoast social issue acquiescence while the same corrupt system and backroom deals keep churning.

...

no I was around for the Aleppo thing, and through it all I found the response from liberals wanting to intervene to basically devolve to "ok we shouldn't send troops obviously but we have to do SOMETHING" at the slightest pushback - typical ineffectual liberal screeching imo.

Obama and those like him are socially savvy enough to know people don't actually say what they want, they just want to complain and keep things more or less the same

Don't rock the boat and let others rob you but only slowly

Day 7: murdered the very same group of children in a drone strike in Yemen that Trump did

I agree 100%. That's the real issue here. I tried to touch on that, and put the war talking point as more of a cheeky afterthought.
People are rejecting this endless treadmill ever more visibly and in greater numbers. The luxury that is status quo-ism is in shorter supply each year.
War is one of the best markers/proxies we have for the contradictions of capitalism, though, and it always bears an analysis.

That poster here, apparently the guy behind the original tweet works at The Intercept and is apparently pretty critical of Obama and the Dems, I assumed he was just another tiresome liberal that just realised that Trump was inheriting the same surveillance state/drone swarm that Obama ruled over (if not expanded).

See what I'm saying? They're dummies. Schoolyard "Marxism" unfortunately is a thing and will continue to be for a long time, so we will always have those types among us.

The worst of all is when they misunderstand, as they always do, the Reform vs. Revolution question, and think that voting is "reformism".

Probably not, tbh. More likely, sure, but still probably not. And not by Day 7.

...

They're both agents of capital who differ solely on the tactical questions of executing bourgeois rule, so yeah

More like a tenth Reagan term really.

Exactly. They are the two faces of Janus.

The point made, at least by Communalists, was never that Trump and Hillary were equally evil.

The point was that they were both evil, rather than an ethical good.

are we literally living in meme dystopia now?

Hey communalists, can you guys be the new Nazbols?

oh am i laffin

The media just won't report about it.

who let the liberal in?

How's your scat/cuckold fetish going?

...

Let me direct you to

Eh, I think Clinton and the WTO were something of a watershed moment in neoliberalism, and Bush II set a lot of new precedents in """national security""" and 🍀🍀🍀foreign policy🍀🍀🍀

Find me literally one social system that doesn't require the use of violence to maintain or establish.
By your implied definition, every politician is a fascist.

I haven't read the article but there may be some merit to this.
Clinton's campaign was based entirely on spreadsheets, polls, data, and algorithms. She didn't campaign in michigan because her data said it was a guaranteed win. Would-be volunteers were turned away from local offices because putting up yard signs and canvassing were deemed "not scientifically significant" methods of increasing votes.
They were too "smart" to actually do politics and build support. Not sure if that's what the intelligencer thinks but it's one take.
youtu.be/PyPxjXoMvuc?t=2m34s
politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

The article isn't as bad as the title implies, but it was too funny not to save and let people misinterpret :P

Not everyone here is burger, so fuck you with "the real danger is complacency".

Trump is porky, but just take a look on the whole "russians hacked the election" debacle. Compared to the Obama-Clinton propaganda, fucking with another nuclear power, Trump seemed like a sensible guy.

Don't be mistaken, the system is overall comforable with just extracting the wages, but neither Obama nor Clinton (nor Trump) are the system itself. There's a competition between porkies even if they do form a united front against prole. Read some Foucault.

...

Lol. You don't need to read one of the darlings of the academic pseudo-left to come to this conclusion, it should be obvious from the simple fact that bourgeois parties disagree with each other (on the tactical approach to class rule.) Which in turn is a given, unless you believe that the Democrats are actually a party of the "99%"
Trump's hard pivot to protectionism and nationalism is not something the broad majority of the bourgeoisie is behind, as evinced by the corporate media's "united front," Hillary's taking victory for granted, and various other markers.
Even with identical material interests, two agents can have vastly different cost-benefit analyses of them, in principle. This is seen most strikingly within the proletariat.

That is certainly true.

The surveilance state, including all the lowjacking of computer hardware in the factories, took off under Bush II, but it had already begun under Clinton. The same is true of the torture and assassinations that Bush II openly practiced. If anything, I would say that what really set W apart was his openness concerning the monstrous policies that he was known for. Clinton was much better at appearing harmless.

It'd basically be the same, minus the Muslim ban. Her cabinet would have been filled with former Goldman Sachs execs too.

Faget.

She would have signed as soon as she became president. And she would do it in the middle of the night with no discussion and the media would downplay it and call everyone criticizing her a sexist bigot.

...

...

Oh, shit, looks like I misread that worse than I misread chess positions

Not this guy, but give me a run down on why punching randos is effective?

1. bash a fash
2. what then? What the fuck we accomplish by that? Nothing changes, memes were made and there is a sense of accomplishment that leads to complacency.

But in the end, I wake up and everything is as same as before.

They become afraid to organise. Look at Spencer. He's fucking pissing himself…

...

...

...

...

took me a while

Get out, brit.

It's fun.

Fuck off 🍀🍀🍀Mick🍀🍀🍀

It is ok. You cannot help being retarded being a neocon and all.

don't be mean, i thought his post was funny

Feels good man.

I am not being mean. Neocons are as retarded as they are hilarious.

That's part of the reason she lost, by the by.

Come on guys Michelle is going to take those racist sexist sinners and brocialists down a peg! Why are you so worried about income inequality when some poor trans person somewhere was forced to hold their pee until they got home?

...

...

Trump's election was a maelstrom of salt and hypocrisy.

There are liberals on this board? And here I thought it was just leftcoms and Holla Forums edgelords.

Not liking them gives me authority to hurt them.

They basically admit the sentence is right. If it wasn't, it wouldn't cause this much butthurt to warrant an article.

no one? Not even the republican house and senate would resist her? The ones that have been resisting her for decades?

To be fair the election was sorta rigged for Trump, I mean he got less votes and won anyway due to the crappy design of the electoral college

there's a difference between "election is rigged" and "election system is rigged." The first isn't true, there were not enough ballot stuffers to rig it. The second is more true, districts in the important states were drawn in favor of republicans. maybe if you read the articles instead of just the headlines you wouldn't sound so inbred when you post.

Splitting hairs. They did a 180 when they saw they were losing. Whether anyting is rigged is moot.

The electoral college is designed to do that, to give more proportional power to people in sparsely populated "flyover" states

Yeah if we're really being honest clinton was the far more accelerationist choice since it'd be another 4 years of NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENING

Truly paradoxical that the most accelerationist program is in just standing still. *sniff* Such are the weights of the capitalist contradictions and so on