Hillary Clinton: What happened

PJ_Soul

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

EdsonNascimento

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

What does a national poll matter? We don't have a national election. State polls and state projections are what matters and they were wildly off.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/wisconsin/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/

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.

JC29856

EdsonNascimento said:

JC29856 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento 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.

PJ_Soul

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.

EdsonNascimento

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.

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

EdsonNascimento 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. 

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 Beavers

Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 

HughFreakingDillon

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?

CM189191

Go Beavers said:

Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 

technically, sanders did lose to trump

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul said:

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

I wish the left would stop using false equivalency as a default argument. It's such a silly thing and more times than not all it reveals is you don't understand what someone is saying. I've been on the outside of a conversation, seen that used, don't even agree with the person being accused of it, and it's so clear the accuser is clueless. (And I'm not even sure how Stalin got into this conversation.  That's a false something, but I have no idea what).  Basically, all you're saying is the Trump voters are stupid and the Clinton voters aren't. So, keep going with that. It will help you understand things better when all you see is the inside of your own eyelids.

Anyway, in this case there's no equivalency.   You're making the election Trump v Clinton.  Clinton lost. She sucked.  She was terrible. Move on.  It wasn't a matter of Trump winning other than he energized his base (whatever that was) more than she did. Other than their bases, most people were probably making a decision based on the negatives of 1 of the 2 and holding their nose while doing it. So, they weren't saying Trump>Clinton as much as - no way, Clinton (and yes, that applies the other way, too as you've discussed clearly). And, again, it's such a small part of the population. The bigger thing for Clinton is she didn't inspire. She not getting enough people off their asses in the right places to get out to vote for her was a bigger problem than who voted for Trump.

And, I'll beat you to it - somewhere in there is a false equivalency. I have no idea where, but let's move on.

EdsonNascimento

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.

PJ_Soul

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 

technically, sanders did lose to trump

Well, no. Technically, Sanders only lost to Clinton.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.

That's not logic. Logic incorporates data and the fact that Sanders had a D next his name. It doesn't matter what he was before. The same way trump had an R next to his and people voted for him. Just thinking Sanders was too liberal to get elected doesn't change votes. Only a scandal would. 

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  

First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  

First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  

First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  

I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.

That's not logic. Logic incorporates data and the fact that Sanders had a D next his name. It doesn't matter what he was before. The same way trump had an R next to his and people voted for him. Just thinking Sanders was too liberal to get elected doesn't change votes. Only a scandal would. 

I'd argue it is logical to assume we'd need to see numbers of Sanders v Trump AFTER Sanders had won the nomination, not when he was still running against Hillary. apples to oranges to me. 

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat 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.

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.

You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  

First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  

I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.