Hillary's announcement.....are you kidding me?!?!?!?!????

[Lone Clone]

This thing was as highly choreographed as you can get, right? It was done by social media in order to avoid questions and, presumably, gaffes of some kind. The date and time was chosen and announced long, long ago. The candidate and her staff had literally months to make sure everything was right.

So what happened?

1. It was three hours late. THREE HOURS.

2. It was released to donors before it was publicly released, thereby stepping all over itself.

3. It told supporters to go to a YouTube site that doesn't function.

4. It bragged that Hillary "has fought children and families throughout her career."


OK, it's funny. But seriously........no wonder the woman has failed miserably at everything she's attempted (except marrying a successful politician).

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[slieb85]

It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

 

[Funky Bunch]

What announcement? I know nothing about this because my life doesn't suck.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

it's a known fact that there is or are bots and electronic manipulation, and it's made to look like the world gives a darn, rigged

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

That phony response is probably what they spent the three hours arranging.

Seriously, don't you find it somewhat odd that it was screwed up? And you don't think being 3 hours late and scripting a whopper of a gaffe constitutes a botch?

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

There are 360,000,000 people in the U.S. 85,000? Wow. That's huge.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

There are 360,000,000 people in the U.S. 85,000? Wow. That's huge.

probably 10 women give a darn in the whole country and those women are couples, so five households, hee hee

 

[pepsicock]

 

[Doodads and Hoohah]

We will be hearing about it for the next 18 months so what is the big deal with a couple tweets.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CadetHawk]

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.



It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.



She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

1k re tweets per second for a short time? Like 84 seconds? Must have been slow the other 4 hours and 28 minutes? Define short time, if you would be so kind.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by CadetHawk:

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.


It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.


She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

1k re tweets per second for a short time? Like 84 seconds? Must have been slow the other 4 hours and 28 minutes? Define short time, if you would be so kind.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

What difference does it make? (See how much fun Hillary can be?)

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by CadetHawk:

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.



It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.



She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

1k re tweets per second for a short time? Like 84 seconds? Must have been slow the other 4 hours and 28 minutes? Define short time, if you would be so kind.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Meant to say per minute.

Also, to those that are downplaying it, you clearly aren't getting it. It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

 

[jellyfish10]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
What announcement? I know nothing about this because my life doesn't suck.

This.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Meant to say per minute.

Also, to those that are downplaying it, you clearly aren't getting it. It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Statuses, now you've really confused them.

 

[pepsicock]

 

[22*43*51]

So, you're saying that she has 84,600 personal devices and one big damn private server.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

So, you're saying that she has 84,600 personal devices and one big damn private server.

You wouldn't need multiple devices. You can set up as many Twitter accounts as you like for free and access them all from one device, just like Hillary likes it. There are companies that will even do this for you and send out tweet storms to make you look popular.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

So, you're saying that she has 84,600 personal devices and one big damn private server.

Yep. No popular support at all for her...

Like I said, I'll never vote for her. I just don't quite get this line of attack. It clearly resonated with her base. Go after her on all the other numerous things you could go after her on.

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by slieb85:

It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Well this is just great. When the country elects people so they can brag about it on Facebook, we tend to get really good results.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

So, you're saying that she has 84,600 personal devices and one big damn private server.

You wouldn't need multiple devices. You can set up as many Twitter accounts as you like for free and access them all from one device, just like Hillary likes it. There are companies that will even do this for you and send out tweet storms to make you look popular.

This. I have companies emailing me all the time to ask if I want our game to be "game of the week". If so, they would use their bots to vote for it on the local news station. One week we received 54,000 votes. There are 420 kids in the school. It was that company. They also do it for Facebook LIKES and Re-tweets.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by slieb85:

It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Well this is just great. When the country elects people so they can brag about it on Facebook, we tend to get really good results.

Even if you hadn't completely misunderstood the point of this conversation, you're still wrong. These aren't high school kids or a group of hippies at a liberal arts college. They're politically minded, soon to be successful, graduate students. And they're not bragging about anything, they're talking about why they're going to vote for her and how this campaign strategy has them excited to get out the word for Hillary.


You and I may not like her. But she's popular with a lot of people, even really smart people. Yesterday's news, no matter how LC tries to spin it, went over very well.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
What announcement? I know nothing about this because my life doesn't suck.

What did she announce?

 

[jscott78]

She was watching the Masters. Like everyone else.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

So, you're saying that she has 84,600 personal devices and one big damn private server.

You wouldn't need multiple devices. You can set up as many Twitter accounts as you like for free and access them all from one device, just like Hillary likes it. There are companies that will even do this for you and send out tweet storms to make you look popular.

This. I have companies emailing me all the time to ask if I want our game to be "game of the week". If so, they would use their bots to vote for it on the local news station. One week we received 54,000 votes. There are 420 kids in the school. It was that company. They also do it for Facebook LIKES and Re-tweets.

And so much cheaper than having to buy 100,000 copies of your own book to get it on the best seller list.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by slieb85:

It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Well this is just great. When the country elects people so they can brag about it on Facebook, we tend to get really good results.

Even if you hadn't completely misunderstood the point of this conversation, you're still wrong. These aren't high school kids or a group of hippies at a liberal arts college. They're politically minded, soon to be successful, graduate students. And they're not bragging about anything, they're talking about why they're going to vote for her and how this campaign strategy has them excited to get out the word for Hillary.


You and I may not like her. But she's popular with a lot of people, even really smart people. Yesterday's news, no matter how LC tries to spin it, went over very well.

Actually, you are the one who appears to have missed the point.

I wasn't commenting on the success or lack thereof. I was commenting on the latest illustration of the woman's total incompetence.

Of course it went over well with her supporters. That, as a matter of fact, is yet another point. She could have gotten up, flashed the room, vomited and announced she is a communist who once set a school bus afire, and the people you're talking about would tweet that she was very assertive, frank, and revealed a new facet of her personality.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

...announced she is a communist who once set a school bus afire....

Future historians will trace the origin of this campaign-destroying fact to HROT, the revered center of journalism in the early 21st century.

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:
It was, for a time, averaging 1000 re-tweets per second.

It has had 84,600 re-tweets in 4.5 hours.

She may have "botched" it as far as you're concerned, but it's reaching her targets.

That phony response is probably what they spent the three hours arranging.

Seriously, don't you find it somewhat odd that it was screwed up? And you don't think being 3 hours late and scripting a whopper of a gaffe constitutes a botch?

Thise numbers say a lot about her "targets"

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

...announced she is a communist who once set a school bus afire....

Future historians will trace the origin of this campaign-destroying fact to HROT, the revered center of journalism in the early 21st century.

Thanks for the reassurance, Parser. I would have been concerned if you had understood the point.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by slieb85:

It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Well this is just great. When the country elects people so they can brag about it on Facebook, we tend to get really good results.

Even if you hadn't completely misunderstood the point of this conversation, you're still wrong. These aren't high school kids or a group of hippies at a liberal arts college. They're politically minded, soon to be successful, graduate students. And they're not bragging about anything, they're talking about why they're going to vote for her and how this campaign strategy has them excited to get out the word for Hillary.


You and I may not like her. But she's popular with a lot of people, even really smart people. Yesterday's news, no matter how LC tries to spin it, went over very well.

Actually, you are the one who appears to have missed the point.

I wasn't commenting on the success or lack thereof. I was commenting on the latest illustration of the woman's total incompetence.

Of course it went over well with her supporters. That, as a matter of fact, is yet another point. She could have gotten up, flashed the room, vomited and announced she is a communist who once set a school bus afire, and the people you're talking about would tweet that she was very assertive, frank, and revealed a new facet of her personality.

Nope. I've simply taken the argument you've presented in your OP and argued against it from a slightly different point of view.

Your contention is that this was a failure, because of the delays/bad links/etc., and that Hillary has failed at everything except politics.

I'm arguing that it's not a failure, at all, because the delays/bad links are irrelevant to the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to motivate her base and create some buzz around her campaign. She's done just that. I highly doubt many people know, or even care, about her delays in launching the campaign. You say that makes her a failure, and I say the nearly 100,000 retweets of her tweet and 2.2milllion youtube views of her new video show she's not failing at her objectives.

If her objectives were to run an announcement right on schedule, you'd be right. But I think we both know that wasn't her objective.

As I said, smart and sophisticated women were very excited by this announcement yesterday. There are plenty of substantive reasons to dislike Hillary (I have a number), but if you focus on stuff like this, you're going to lose.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by slieb85:

It's resonating with the people it is meant to resonate with. The strategy wasn't meant to get IMCC or LC. It was meant to get the 15 girls I go to school with who all have statuses about it, all of which have like 10-15 comments and likes on their statuses.

Well this is just great. When the country elects people so they can brag about it on Facebook, we tend to get really good results.

Even if you hadn't completely misunderstood the point of this conversation, you're still wrong. These aren't high school kids or a group of hippies at a liberal arts college. They're politically minded, soon to be successful, graduate students. And they're not bragging about anything, they're talking about why they're going to vote for her and how this campaign strategy has them excited to get out the word for Hillary.


You and I may not like her. But she's popular with a lot of people, even really smart people. Yesterday's news, no matter how LC tries to spin it, went over very well.

Actually, you are the one who appears to have missed the point.

I wasn't commenting on the success or lack thereof. I was commenting on the latest illustration of the woman's total incompetence.

Of course it went over well with her supporters. That, as a matter of fact, is yet another point. She could have gotten up, flashed the room, vomited and announced she is a communist who once set a school bus afire, and the people you're talking about would tweet that she was very assertive, frank, and revealed a new facet of her personality.

Nope. I've simply taken the argument you've presented in your OP and argued against it from a slightly different point of view.

Your contention is that this was a failure, because of the delays/bad links/etc., and that Hillary has failed at everything except politics.

I'm arguing that it's not a failure, at all, because the delays/bad links are irrelevant to the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to motivate her base and create some buzz around her campaign. She's done just that. I highly doubt many people know, or even care, about her delays in launching the campaign. You say that makes her a failure, and I say the nearly 100,000 retweets of her tweet and 2.2milllion youtube views of her new video show she's not failing at her objectives.

If her objectives were to run an announcement right on schedule, you'd be right. But I think we both know that wasn't her objective.

As I said, smart and sophisticated women were very excited by this announcement yesterday. There are plenty of substantive reasons to dislike Hillary (I have a number), but if you focus on stuff like this, you're going to lose.

Fair enough. I was criticizing her effort, you were commending her result. It is like the quote -- I forget who said it -- about the dancing dog. It isn't that the dog is dancing so well, it's that it can dance at all. If, as I speculated, she had accidentally confessed to setting a school bus afire, by my standard she would have messed up, but by yours, it would have been successful if her acolytes had been inspired. Which they would have been.

You are wrong about one thing, though. No woman who was very excited by the announcement is either smart or sophisticated. At least, not in the context of politics.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Fair enough. I was criticizing her effort, you were commending her result. It is like the quote -- I forget who said it -- about the dancing dog. It isn't that the dog is dancing so well, it's that it can dance at all. If, as I speculated, she had accidentally confessed to setting a school bus afire, by my standard she would have messed up, but by yours, it would have been successful if her acolytes had been inspired. Which they would have been.

You are wrong about one thing, though. No woman who was very excited by the announcement is either smart or sophisticated. At least, not in the context of politics.

This is where a lot of Republicans are going to stumble. These are women who are (off the top of my head remembering who posted): clerking for the 9th circuit, working for Quinn Emmanuel, the public defender in Brooklyn, and Cravath. These are some of the top of the top of a group of smart people. They also pay attention to this, and aren't tricked into liking Hillary just because she's a woman.

People have different political views. Calling someone unintelligent for supporting the presumed Democratic nominee is pretty shortsighted. If they were all freaking out about Nancy Pelosi or DWS, you'd have a bit of a point (same thing if people rag on someone like Jeb or Walker, but not if they rag on you for supporting some random Senator whacko).

What you're essentially saying is that anyone who votes D in the coming election is not smart. It's a pretty poor way to attack the other side. And all of this is coming from someone who is already on record saying I won't vote for Hillary, and have never voted for a D in a national election.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Fair enough. I was criticizing her effort, you were commending her result. It is like the quote -- I forget who said it -- about the dancing dog. It isn't that the dog is dancing so well, it's that it can dance at all. If, as I speculated, she had accidentally confessed to setting a school bus afire, by my standard she would have messed up, but by yours, it would have been successful if her acolytes had been inspired. Which they would have been.

You are wrong about one thing, though. No woman who was very excited by the announcement is either smart or sophisticated. At least, not in the context of politics.

This is where a lot of Republicans are going to stumble. These are women who are (off the top of my head remembering who posted): clerking for the 9th circuit, working for Quinn Emmanuel, the public defender in Brooklyn, and Cravath. These are some of the top of the top of a group of smart people. They also pay attention to this, and aren't tricked into liking Hillary just because she's a woman.

People have different political views. Calling someone unintelligent for supporting the presumed Democratic nominee is pretty shortsighted. If they were all freaking out about Nancy Pelosi or DWS, you'd have a bit of a point (same thing if people rag on someone like Jeb or Walker, but not if they rag on you for supporting some random Senator whacko).

What you're essentially saying is that anyone who votes D in the coming election is not smart. It's a pretty poor way to attack the other side. And all of this is coming from someone who is already on record saying I won't vote for Hillary, and have never voted for a D in a national election.

Hypothetically, what happens if Carly Fiorina wins the GOP nomination?

 

[naturalmwa]

The cat fights on SNL will be epic if that happens.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

Originally posted by jscott78:
She was watching the Masters. Like everyone else.

I LOL'd

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Fair enough. I was criticizing her effort, you were commending her result. It is like the quote -- I forget who said it -- about the dancing dog. It isn't that the dog is dancing so well, it's that it can dance at all. If, as I speculated, she had accidentally confessed to setting a school bus afire, by my standard she would have messed up, but by yours, it would have been successful if her acolytes had been inspired. Which they would have been.

You are wrong about one thing, though. No woman who was very excited by the announcement is either smart or sophisticated. At least, not in the context of politics.

This is where a lot of Republicans are going to stumble. These are women who are (off the top of my head remembering who posted): clerking for the 9th circuit, working for Quinn Emmanuel, the public defender in Brooklyn, and Cravath. These are some of the top of the top of a group of smart people. They also pay attention to this, and aren't tricked into liking Hillary just because she's a woman.

People have different political views. Calling someone unintelligent for supporting the presumed Democratic nominee is pretty shortsighted. If they were all freaking out about Nancy Pelosi or DWS, you'd have a bit of a point (same thing if people rag on someone like Jeb or Walker, but not if they rag on you for supporting some random Senator whacko).

What you're essentially saying is that anyone who votes D in the coming election is not smart. It's a pretty poor way to attack the other side. And all of this is coming from someone who is already on record saying I won't vote for Hillary, and have never voted for a D in a national election.

No, you misunderstood me. Or didn't read what I wrote. Even though you copied and boldfaced it. I will go you one better and present it again boldfaced, with the relevant phrase underlined and italicized: No woman who was very excited by the announcement is either smart or sophisticated. At least, not in the context of politics.

That is not even in the same ballpark as saying that anyone who voted Democratic in the next presidential election is not smart. A lot of very smart people will vote for the Democratic candidate. But none of them was very excited by Hillary's announcement.

Your comment about Pelosi is interesting. The truth is that she's accomplished considerably more in her political life than Hillary, has not made as many really serious misjudgments, and has not made all that many more verbal gaffes. The people to whom I was referring have no idea what Hillary has done or said, or will do as president.

 

[Arbitr8]

The gimp has no chance.

 

[Wood4Hawks]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
What announcement? I know nothing about this because my life doesn't suck.

Thread winner. Game over boyz.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
What announcement? I know nothing about this because my life doesn't suck.

That's because she isn't in office. yet.