Hacker News Reader

Comment by lowdose | Hacker News Reader

Could you tell me more about that?

He means Trump.

As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up.

How Hillary skated by with many people not knowing or not caring that in more ways than one she is responsible for the president they hate so much, I have no idea.

Edit: you know the emails are on Wikileaks HN, the chain starts with “Friday Strategy”

Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?

Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.

Millions of people also judged Hillary as being unfit for office. She was a horribly flawed candidate. (Not saying that Trump wasn't...)

So, yes, Hillary in fact does deserve some of the blame. She was probably the only candidate the Democrats could have run who would have lost to Trump.

If the accusation is true then she certainly shares some of the blame.

That's not what I gathered from the comment. It seemed like they were saying that Hillary had desired to run against Trump, according to those leaked emails. Is it false that Hillary wanted to run against Trump, back when many (including myself) didn't think he had a chance?

This whole subthread is a giant off-topic diversion.

To be comparable to the original legislative situation here, Trump would've been introduced and controlled deliberately by Clinton.

So instead we just have a thread which changes the subject to an un-needed not-connected tired blame-fest.

That's not true; the GOP is the actor in both cases, and in both cases put forward an extreme thing (in one case a person, in another case, a law). The point is not to be complacent with the intention behind the extreme law, and assume it won't pass, since the analogous thing happened.

I think that's a pretty tight point, and on topic, but I would agree that most of this subthread is OT.

It's true Hilary underestimated Trump. So did the other GOP candidates. They wanted Trump in the race to make their positions seem less extreme, their manner more presidential, and they hoped that his vast media attention would splash over onto them. Trump was expected to be a kind of "loss leader" for the GOP establishment, something wacky and attention-grabbing and low quality, but gets people in the store to buy something a little more sane. (It turns out the average member of a vastly wealthy sole super-power can become complacent, and grow profoundly ignorant of history, politics, philosophy and economics, so ignorant in fact that they cannot recognize a would-be autocrat. He says, "I can do whatever I want, like put my boot in your face," and they respond ecstatic, "At least he tells it like it is!" I think this flies in the face of every educated person's impression of who America is, which is why Trump blindsided everyone, left and right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com