Hillary Clinton: What happened

1235727

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    what a stupid dummy Trump was to pick this election to take a real run at the presidency, what a fool(I know I know he ran then withdrew 16 years ago under the reform party) after 8 year democrat vs crooked hillary. dumb luck I guess.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,022

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 
  • BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 

    I agree with almost all of this, especially your last statement. I think we can all agree he is a pragmatist with a ginormous ego above all else (though aren't all politicians?).
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 

    There is absolutely 0 chance Sanders would have won. All the stupid shit the head of the DNC and her buddies did to rig the nomination was really needless and probably contributed to those that thought Hillary was crooked. And if you can't win your own party, how can you say you would have done better than the actual winner did?  There's a lot to not like about Clinton, but Sanders would have scared the majority of his own party let alone motivation the more centrist on the right even more. I think everyone forgets we are a mostly moderate country. We look at the extremes because they're the loudest. 
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    where does an entire group consisting of millions and millions of people "consistently tell us they are" smarter than everyone else? what a ridiculous and ignorant statement. 

    she bashed "her husband's victims" because it was a political tool where Trump was exploiting the situation. the timing was just a tad more than suspect. 


    I'm not sure what the 2nd part alludes to as I came to the exchange late, so there may be a point there separate from the one I was trying to make.

    To your first point - watch Bill Maher or Keith Olberman for 15 seconds, and you'll understand.

    pfft. those two blowhards are what you call representatives of the left? gimme a break. 


    Agree. I was sort of joking about that.  And, yes, you're correct making blanket statements in general are always wrong (though I think I just made one that may be correct). However, the left does tend to tell people how to think and that they know better even than the people they are contending to help. Just look at this thread.  It kind of is a microcosm of the thought pattern. 

    Think of basic pattern on the economy. Who likes to tell people what to do, and who likes to let the free market work?  (again, blanket statement that is meant to be MOSTLY right and not the gospel).

    My favorite saying for most Democratic leaders is - The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.

    well you can cherry pick any topic and relate it to the right as well: telling people how to live and who to love, for example. 

    however, in your example, the way I see it, the left likes restrictions to protect the people, the right likes to ease restrictions to help the wealthy get wealthier. and don't tell me they do it to help small business-they simply do not do that. 


    Not really.  The left likes to think of themselves that way, but it's not really true.   I do agree the religious right is that sort of stuff.  I still don't get why anyone cares how others live and love (as you put it).

    In terms of the economics - there are a lot of Dem policies that actually hamper those they are trying to help. Again, goes back to what I'm saying - they think you tell the world how to act, and it will act accordingly. Doesn't work that way.  

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 

    There is absolutely 0 chance Sanders would have won. All the stupid shit the head of the DNC and her buddies did to rig the nomination was really needless and probably contributed to those that thought Hillary was crooked. And if you can't win your own party, how can you say you would have done better than the actual winner did?  There's a lot to not like about Clinton, but Sanders would have scared the majority of his own party let alone motivation the more centrist on the right even more. I think everyone forgets we are a mostly moderate country. We look at the extremes because they're the loudest. 
    Confusing, first you say the DNC cheated Bernie, then you say he couldn't win his own party? I don't think that Hillary is Tom Brady good in that the cheating didn't really matter in the victory, I'm not convinced she was going to win anyway. Remember the 6 coin flip in Iowa?
    Bernie ran under the Dem ticket but was not a democrat, democrats didnt consider him a democrat and independents certainly didnt consider him a democrat. Independents make up 41% of registered voters, the group that usually determines who is president. In closed and semi primary states independents are shut out of the process.
    Anyway forget all that....If you were asked last april, which extreme candidate was more likely to win the presidency, Sanders or Trump? Your answer....
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,367

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 
    yeah and strangely the national polls were right on that reflected Clinton by 2-3%

    This shit that went down in MI, PA and WI was fucked up.  I'm not a conspiracy type but tRump won by 80,000 votes which means only 40,000 Clinton votes needed to convert
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    edited August 2017
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,448
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JC29856 said:

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 

    There is absolutely 0 chance Sanders would have won. All the stupid shit the head of the DNC and her buddies did to rig the nomination was really needless and probably contributed to those that thought Hillary was crooked. And if you can't win your own party, how can you say you would have done better than the actual winner did?  There's a lot to not like about Clinton, but Sanders would have scared the majority of his own party let alone motivation the more centrist on the right even more. I think everyone forgets we are a mostly moderate country. We look at the extremes because they're the loudest. 
    Confusing, first you say the DNC cheated Bernie, then you say he couldn't win his own party? I don't think that Hillary is Tom Brady good in that the cheating didn't really matter in the victory, I'm not convinced she was going to win anyway. Remember the 6 coin flip in Iowa?
    Bernie ran under the Dem ticket but was not a democrat, democrats didnt consider him a democrat and independents certainly didnt consider him a democrat. Independents make up 41% of registered voters, the group that usually determines who is president. In closed and semi primary states independents are shut out of the process.
    Anyway forget all that....If you were asked last april, which extreme candidate was more likely to win the presidency, Sanders or Trump? Your answer....


    key word:  Needlessly. Indicating they didn't need to do it. Thus meaning, Clinton would have won anyway while yes they did cheat. Also meaning, Clinton's campaign couldn't even cheat properly.....

    Neither.  But, honestly I would have said Trump b/c as I said in response in this thread - he's a pragmatist who knows how to get what he wants. Sanders on the other hand would have stuck to his guns even as the obvious moderation of the voters came to a reality vs the 10-12 point lead everyone quotes for a phantom election.

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 
    yeah and strangely the national polls were right on that reflected Clinton by 2-3%

    This shit that went down in MI, PA and WI was fucked up.  I'm not a conspiracy type but tRump won by 80,000 votes which means only 40,000 Clinton votes needed to convert


    I understand the fuzzy math people like to use b/c it sounds like they lost by half as much. But, truth is very few people ACTUALLY flip their vote. There are some true undecideds that choose last minute.  However, most people who claim that are really just looking for the kernel from their candidate to convince them.  The issue is motivation.  Better to say Clinton needed to motivate another 80,001 voters to come out for her than to assume it would have been as simple as flipping 40,000 people's minds.

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    I totally think that if it hadn't been for Comey she would have won. Thanks Comey... I bet he regrets that now, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 8,367
    JimmyV said:
    that's my point....everything was "ON" except those three states.  Doesn't make sense.

    And Nate Silver would say that tRump still had a 21% chance to win WI according to the link....
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
    2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,022
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    what? I don't see anywhere that PJSoul claims to be speaking for all women. Quite the contrary, in this very statement: "Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it.". 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    edited August 2017
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I'm not missing proving your point at all. And I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell and deserve all the criticism in the world, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    You're right. She's telling EVERYONE how to think. I mistyped. Thanks for the correction.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    You're right. She's telling EVERYONE how to think. I mistyped. Thanks for the correction.
    Pardon?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,022
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    You're right. She's telling EVERYONE how to think. I mistyped. Thanks for the correction.
    k, now you've lost me. she clearly stated it was her opinion and nothing more. 
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I'm not missing proving your point at all. And I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell and deserve all the criticism in the world, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    is this "thinks", as in now, or thought, as in prior to the election?
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    JC29856 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I'm not missing proving your point at all. And I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell and deserve all the criticism in the world, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    is this "thinks", as in now, or thought, as in prior to the election?
    Then and now.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    I don't see any reason for the left to reconcile that, since it doesn't even come close to how bad Trump is, especially when it comes to women.
    Besides that, to bash Hillary for that seems a bit off-side to me, a woman. Women are in fact allowed to criticize other women if that's how they feel about it. If Hillary actually knows that these women were victims of her husband, that is one thing. But we have absolutely no reason to assume that she does believe that. If she really thinks that those women are lying, then one should expect that she would act the way she did. If some woman accused my husband of rape and I truly believed that he didn't do it, well then I'd be bashing that woman too. If she thinks the rapes happened and did that anyway, yes, that's scummy, although not nearly as scummy as Trump still, who is a sexual predator, so either way, I feel like that should be easily reconcilable for leftists when the question is who is the worse person between Clinton and Trump. I truly don't know how someone who HATES Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, can hate her more than Trump or think Trump could do a better job than her as the POTUS. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Again, you're both missing and proving the point. You as a woman think you talk for all women. I'm not telling you that you should think Clinton< Trump. I'm trying to explain how others might think. And, as is the norm, you think that's completely wrong and those people are stupid for thinking as such.
    I don't think I talk for all women - where'd you get that idea?? I speak for myself and myself alone.
    But yes, I think anyone who thinks that Trump is preferable to Clinton is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm super comfortable with that opinion.
    You're right. She's telling EVERYONE how to think. I mistyped. Thanks for the correction.
    k, now you've lost me. she clearly stated it was her opinion and nothing more. 

    I was trying to say others may think this. the response was - I don't see how anyone can think this instead of this.  I am not actually arguing either side. I'm just trying to bring to the surface 1 data point some people may have been considering in making a choice (and for some people it may have been the ONLY point).  You're trying to make this Trump v Clinton when for most people that's not the case. As has been talked about ad naseum - both candidates were  2 of the most distasteful candidates ever.  So, people are literally choosing the lesser of 2 evils. 

    So, in an election where most people are voting party regardless, many of the remainder were probably voting AGAINST someone and not making a commentary that this one is better than this one. 

    Anyway, to me the most important reason to vote against Clinton is she pretended to be a Yankees fan until it was convenient to be a Cubs fan. Where the f does she get off pretending to be a Yankees fan? And once flipping to be a Yankees fan, you don't get to flip back to being a Cubs fan.  That's hard and fast. You cannot break that rule of fandom.  And, BTW, how the hell does that make a Cleveland fan feel? Maybe, that's why she lost Ohio.


    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 19,888
    JimmyV said:
    that's my point....everything was "ON" except those three states.  Doesn't make sense.

    And Nate Silver would say that tRump still had a 21% chance to win WI according to the link....
    Read up on micro-targeting, Russia, Trump campaign, collusion, Russian web-bots, misinformation campaigns, sway election.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JC29856 said:

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 

    There is absolutely 0 chance Sanders would have won. All the stupid shit the head of the DNC and her buddies did to rig the nomination was really needless and probably contributed to those that thought Hillary was crooked. And if you can't win your own party, how can you say you would have done better than the actual winner did?  There's a lot to not like about Clinton, but Sanders would have scared the majority of his own party let alone motivation the more centrist on the right even more. I think everyone forgets we are a mostly moderate country. We look at the extremes because they're the loudest. 
    Confusing, first you say the DNC cheated Bernie, then you say he couldn't win his own party? I don't think that Hillary is Tom Brady good in that the cheating didn't really matter in the victory, I'm not convinced she was going to win anyway. Remember the 6 coin flip in Iowa?
    Bernie ran under the Dem ticket but was not a democrat, democrats didnt consider him a democrat and independents certainly didnt consider him a democrat. Independents make up 41% of registered voters, the group that usually determines who is president. In closed and semi primary states independents are shut out of the process.
    Anyway forget all that....If you were asked last april, which extreme candidate was more likely to win the presidency, Sanders or Trump? Your answer....


    key word:  Needlessly. Indicating they didn't need to do it. Thus meaning, Clinton would have won anyway while yes they did cheat. Also meaning, Clinton's campaign couldn't even cheat properly.....

    Neither.  But, honestly I would have said Trump b/c as I said in response in this thread - he's a pragmatist who knows how to get what he wants. Sanders on the other hand would have stuck to his guns even as the obvious moderation of the voters came to a reality vs the 10-12 point lead everyone quotes for a phantom election.

    Needlessly, to use a baseball analogy: Barry Bonds is a champion/HOF'er with or without steroids. Hillary isnt/wasnt and never will be Tom Brady or Barry Bonds good, just look at her win/loss records.
    Hillary is more like Sammy Sosa good, saying Hillary would have won without the cheating is guessing how many home runs Sosa would have hit without the roids, impossible. They were average at best before the cheating and needed to cheat to achieve.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    edited August 2017
    Well that is my point - yes, choosing the lesser of two evils... Trump is so much more evil than Clinton as a candidate or POTUS it's almost funny, which is my point. Frankly, I actually feel that any Republican who voted for Trump in the primaries or in the general election is a traitor to their party, as well as an idiot, at best. A horrible, nasty human being at worst.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    Well that is my point - yes, choosing the lesser of two evils... Trump is so much more evil than Clinton as a candidate or POTUS it's almost funny, which is my point. Frankly, I actually feel that any Republican who voted for Trump in the primaries or in the general election is a traitor to their party, as well as an idiot, at best. A horrible, nasty human being at worst.


    Well, I'm sure there are many who voted for Trump who think the same about Clinton voters.

    And perhaps, that's the problem. We need to stop reacting and getting sucked in to those extremists on both sides and find a credible, moderate President.

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,857
    edited August 2017
    PJ_Soul said:
    Well that is my point - yes, choosing the lesser of two evils... Trump is so much more evil than Clinton as a candidate or POTUS it's almost funny, which is my point. Frankly, I actually feel that any Republican who voted for Trump in the primaries or in the general election is a traitor to their party, as well as an idiot, at best. A horrible, nasty human being at worst.


    Well, I'm sure there are many who voted for Trump who think the same about Clinton voters.

    And perhaps, that's the problem. We need to stop reacting and getting sucked in to those extremists on both sides and find a credible, moderate President.

    Yes, well the problem I have is that I think that is a massive false equivalency. It's like comparing George W. Bush and Stalin or something, and claiming that Bush was perhaps worse as a leader. It just doesn't hold water, given all the facts.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,161

    BTW, the other issue that I still haven't seen her address (maybe the book does, but I'll never know) is that everyone treats this like a typical election. Trump is more Democrat than Republican  It's was 2 bad, somewhat centrist, very wealthy, extremely flawed candidates spewing whatever they needed to in order to attract voters.

    The fact is HughFD got it spot on in pointing out - it was the Republican's turn.  A 2 term increasingly unpopular (read that as a trend and separate it from what happens when they are no longer in office and what you "know" to be correct) President leads to the other party winning. 8 years is a long time for anything.  Folks on one side get happy and content. While folks on the other side get unhappy and motivated.  It's probably not much more complicated than that.

    The big question we'll never know is could the Dems have bucked this trend with a better candidate, or was the Republicans winning a foregone conclusion?  Which goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton and her supporters still can't accept - she was so bad, she couldn't answer that question.

    to the people who think the bernie could have won, I disagree. he was WAY too progressively left for people to embrace him. americans are more worried about their own personal finances than they are the environment or the rights of the oppressed. 

    trump ran on fear, and that often wins. it is simply not human nature to believe the person who is saying "everything will be alright" instead of the person saying "we are in danger! I will protect you!". especially in times like these of media sensationalization of absolutely everything. 

    trump WAS more democrat than republican. he is now embracing his right wing role as he thinks that's his best chance at keeping the WH. 
    Sanders would've won. His lead on trump was consistently 10-12 points. 
    hillary was a lock at 92% to win as well as late as election night. 
    yeah and strangely the national polls were right on that reflected Clinton by 2-3%

    This shit that went down in MI, PA and WI was fucked up.  I'm not a conspiracy type but tRump won by 80,000 votes which means only 40,000 Clinton votes needed to convert


    I understand the fuzzy math people like to use b/c it sounds like they lost by half as much. But, truth is very few people ACTUALLY flip their vote. There are some true undecideds that choose last minute.  However, most people who claim that are really just looking for the kernel from their candidate to convince them.  The issue is motivation.  Better to say Clinton needed to motivate another 80,001 voters to come out for her than to assume it would have been as simple as flipping 40,000 people's minds.

    The undecides until the last minute were higher this election. Comey sealed it for trump. 
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,161
    Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,022
    I'm not denying the data. I don't think you can use that data. He wasn't the candidate. Trump had a zero chance of winning while Sanders was still in the race on the left. I don't think it can be accurately stated either way, to be honest. I'm just giving my opinion based on how america typically votes, and they have NEVER voted an independent masked as a democrat. How many bernie bros abandoned him once he started running as a dem?
Sign In or Register to comment.