I swear TO GAWD that sub was originally satire, but now it's full nominative determinism
Hillary was right about Iraq in 2001.
Hillary was right about gay marriage in 2008.
Hillary was right about super-predators in the 90s.
Hillary was right about the slaves kept at the governors mansion.
Hillary cannot fail, she can only be failed.
Can confirm, I was a teenage super-predator. They kept me in a small cage and fed me entrails.
And now you’re on a website for aggressive geometry bears, she knew.
Omg ur so brave and divisive. I’m literally ur biggest fan mr ye
They say this about Al Gore as well when the US would have probably still gone to Afghanistan after 9/11 and libs would be cheering it as hard as they've been cheering Ukraine. The only major difference would possibly be no Iraq and even that's hard to say with how the Republicans had both the house and senate during Bush's first term.
Shit, libs still cheered pretty hard under bush too tbf. It was political/career suicide to criticize the idea of going to war back then from both sides. The jingoism was really off the charts. It wasn’t til around bush’s second term that it became more acceptable to be critical of it.
But also yea if there’s one thing that always keeps going regardless of who’s president it’s the imperialist machine and military spending
always gotta wait until the situation is locked in and irreversible before speaking truth to power, that way you don't ever have to actually do anything :hillary:
They cheered for Afghanistan but weren't happy about Iraq. Sort of. I remember the backlash against the French when they refused to join the coalition. They seemed to change their opinion every week based on what outrage the media fed them.
A lot of Americans believed the FBI. The FBI, the trusted organization that would never lie, approved of the invasion as absolutely necessary. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam.
Here's Robert Mueller lying us into the Iraq War. Video evidence of him lying to Congress.
huh? the al gore fantasy is that 9/11 would've been prevented
Don't remember that one at all. I remember hearing liberals in the suburbs saying "we wouldn't be in this damn war if Gore had won" all the time
i believe it is related to this briefing, with the idea that Gore and/or his staff and appointees would have taken it more seriously and been more cooperative with their predecessors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US
although people have somewhat forgotten that before 9/11 people who did hijackings wanted money, somebody let out of prison, or to go to cuba.
They say this about Al Gore as well when the US would have probably still gone to Afghanistan after 9/11 and libs would be cheering it as hard as they’ve been cheering Ukraine.
The difference between Gore and Bush is largely that Dems caved to Bush far more quickly than Republicans would have caved to Gore. I don't know if we necessarily get a 9/11 under Gore. If you put on your tin-foil hat, you might see it as an effort by Pappa Bush to congel power within the Executive... that's not something you'd want under a Democratic President. There's also a not-unrealistic assumption that Gore wouldn't have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of all else. His people in the Admin would have taken CIA warnings of a pending attack more seriously. Maybe Gore would have done something at a foreign policy level to defuse hostilities or delay the execution. Maybe he would have redirected the hijackers' ire at a different set of targets. Idk.
Even assuming the attacks went forward, one thing I can guarantee is that Gore wouldn't have had anything resembling the free hand or the unlimited money pile Bush received. The 2002 election would be a condemnation of Weak Liberals Caving to Terrorism rather than a buttressing of conservative ideology. Invasion of Afghanistan would have been slower and more clumbsy. Invasion of Iraq very likely would not have happened. We'd have a different set of political alliances, as - again - Pappa Bush's legacy allies in the region (the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Europeans) would have approached Gore differently.
And Gore would almost certainly have been a one-term President.
LOLOLOL AND THEN HILLARY HAD MORE FAITHLESS ELECTORS THAN TRUMP
OLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLO
If Hillary won the presidency, then the world would look like a nuclear wasteland because it would have been a nuclear wasteland.
I've never trusted this. I'm not defending her, but I don't think she'd have been any different than any other ghouls who came before or after her. She would have probably tried to put a no-fly zone over Syria, tensions would have escalated with Russia further, and maybe Russia invades Ukraine a few years early. But I can't see it turning into a nuclear conflict with either Russia or Iran.
The only major difference I can imagine would be Trump runs again in 2020 after coasting along for 4 years on a campaign of a stolen 2016, then he wins in 2020 with an election that mirrors our 2016
What are the events that would lead to nuclear war?
I'll admit I was being pretty flippant when I wrote this comment. But I'm thinking particularly about a difference between say Hillary and Trump is that Hillary is more of a hawk. It's hard to say what would happen because events are so contingent, but I think if you add even more US hawkishness to the e.g. the current events in Ukraine, then it's not outside the realm of possibility things could spiral out of control.
Russia invading a few years early for example could have led to a totally different NATO calculus, maybe back then NATO would have estimated Russia is not ready for a war and went all in.
Trump was the only US president in living memory not to start a new war.
He even tried to end a couple, in Syria (why are we at war in Syria?), in Afghanistan and he tried to withdraw US troops from Germany to tremendous applause from the Germans.
Remember just before the inauguration, when a US tank brigade was stationed in the territory closest to Moscow, Lithuania I think. That was Hillary's big stick. She was going to provoke the Russians into starting some shit and then hit them with the tanks. A rush of NATO would follow "they attacked us!"
Instead, the troops just did some exercises and went home. These troop movements require months of planning, they weren't there as an accident. Don't forget absolutely everybody expected Hillary to win.
The meme at the time was "we're through the looking glass here, Trump is president and Obama just sent tanks into Poland."
She absolutely would have gone to war against Iran. It was the only time Trump frustrated the war hawks.
"everything she said was correct" is such a lazy argument. At least try and point some specific examples out.
Can experiencing what the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates said and how they said it through gender-reversed characters, cause us to revisit our own biases and develop insights from different perspectives?
Her Opponent uses documentary theatre techniques to re-create excerpts of the three 2016 presidential debates. An actor performs the text, gestures, and movements of Hillary Clinton, but as a male Democratic candidate named Jonathan Gordon and an actress performs the text, gestures, and movements of Donald Trump, but as a female Republican candidate named Brenda King. A third actor plays the role of The Moderator from each of the three debates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ9FdRaTGEo
Honestly the Hillary stand-in dude come across as an even bigger loser than Hilldog herself
Gender swapping them makes me get Trump. Now I'm like "ohhh! that's why people liked this guy"
So heroic of her to warn us that Donald Trump is a bad guy and would do bad things as predisent :hillgasm:
"We came, we saw, he died" -:hillary-contempt: in response to a man being tortured and killed.
