You were smart to vote for her, particularly considering the alternative, but I completely disagree with the third sentence in your post. The DNC and Ms. Clinton deserved to lose? Really? Because you wanted Bernie, you wanted change? I realize the "you" in that sentence represents a group, so don't think I'm picking on you personally, but with all due respect, consider this. That very mindset put Mr. trump in the White House, and probably kept the Senate from being controlled by the Democratic Party. The election was so close that even with the clear interference by a hostile state in our national election in support of Mr. trump, those Democrats and independent voters who felt as you did, but decided to stay home, made the difference between a vastly better choice as President, even with all her faults, and that trump fellow. You know, the guy who's mentally ill (in my opinion), a pathological liar, seemingly determined to both blow Putin (figuratively speaking) and weaken the United States at the same time, as he's very deliberately getting rid of every single thing President Obama accomplished in 8 years as President. That's what your attitude gave us. Donald trump. Yes, you may have voted for Hillary, but you are a marvelous example of why so many who voted for Obama twice, stayed home and failed to vote for her, or for anyone else. It handed the nation a catastrophe that will take years to recover from, and that's if trump left office tomorrow. As far as I know, he isn't leaving office until he's impeached, resigns, or is defeated in 2020.
some of you may find this interesting, from today's WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/heres-what-really-happened-to-hillary-1505431677 Here’s What Really Happened to Hillary Voters found her unappealing, and they rejected Bernie’s ideology too. By Kimberley A. Strassel Sept. 14, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET 313 COMMENTS Republicans have issues, but Democrats have them too. Witness the two individuals who dominated this week’s news—and who conveniently represent the left’s most crippling problems. Hillary Clinton is again everywhere, touting her new memoir and adding to the list of who and what are to blame for her loss: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, James Comey, Jill Stein, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Anthony Weiner, sexism, misogyny, the New York Times , lazy women, liberal activists and the “godforsaken Electoral College.” All she’s missing is climate change. Hillary’s take on “What Happened” has unsurprisingly unleashed another round of analysis about her mistakes—Wisconsin, deplorables, email. These sorts of detailed postmortems of failed campaigns are popular, but they tend to obscure the bigger reasons for failure. In this case: The Democratic Party saddled itself with an ethically compromised and joyless candidate, because it had nobody else. Hillary spent eight years planning her first presidential bid, and the next eight warning Democrats not to get in the way of her second. The Clinton Foundation was erected to serve as bank and Rolodex, and to enable the Clintons to retain their grip over the party. And that party was committed to a Clinton coronation, right up to Mr. Sanders’s cheeky assault. Mr. Obama aided Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions by decimating his party. By the time Barack Obama finished his eight years in office, his party held 65 fewer House seats, 14 fewer governorships and controlled 30 fewer state legislatures. It had turned a once-filibuster-proof Senate majority into minority status. The big-tent Democratic coalition shriveled to a coastal, progressive minority, wiping out a generation of Democratic politicians and most of the party’s political diversity. And so the party nominated perhaps the only Democrat in the country who could rival Donald Trump in unpopularity—and beat him in untrustworthiness. Mr. Sanders refused to go after Mrs. Clinton on her ethical baggage, even though it was her biggest weakness and despite how glaringly obvious was the risk that her foundation and server scandals would hobble a general-election campaign. The parties gave the country a choice between two unpopular people, and the country disliked her more. The real question is how Democrats rebuild a party whose senior leaders in the House boast an average age of 72 and which has almost no young, experienced up-and-comers. Which brings us to Mr. Sanders, the symbol of Democrats’ other big problem. This week the senator, flanked by about one-third of Senate Democrats, released his “Medicare for All” proposal to nationalize health care. These are the ascendant voices in the party. Yet there are few of them, because their agenda is highly unpopular. Mr. Sanders was an unexpected force in the primary, though mostly because he wasn’t Hillary. Sanders supporters resent this argument, and claim the only reason his agenda didn’t triumph is because the DNC robbed him of the election. If so, why did Bernie’s people and ideas fail spectacularly everywhere else on the ballot? In Wisconsin Mr. Sanders campaigned for Russ Feingold, who promised a $15 federal minimum wage, an end to trade deals and free college. Mr. Feingold lost to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. In upstate New York, in a white, working-class district, Mr. Sanders endorsed Zephyr Teachout, who railed against bankers and lobbyists, fought fracking and Citizens United, and opposed trade. Republican John Faso beat her for the open seat by eight percentage points, on a promise to kill Dodd-Frank. Democrats wouldn’t even vote for Tim Canova, the man who primaried Mr. Sanders’s archenemy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. An extraordinary 79% of Colorado voters said no to a ballot initiative for ColoradoCare, the state version of Mr. Sanders’s universal health-care proposal. This in a state that Hillary Clinton won. Liberal Vermont pulled its own single-payer plug in 2014. In California, Mr. Sanders endorsed and campaigned for Proposition 61, which was designed to impose prescription drug price controls. It went down to substantial defeat in a state Mrs. Clinton won by 30 points. Progressives will argue that all they need to elect a Bernie or an Elizabeth is the right way of pitching their “populist” policies of free health care or price-controlled drugs to the white working class and independents. But so far they’ve been unable to sell them even to bright blue states. And this wishful thinking ignores that even if voters supported some of those provisions, they’d also have to swallow a progressive agenda that includes an energy crackdown, a retreat from the terror fight, and the culture of identity politics. Republicans have failed to unite or govern or pass their biggest priorities. But the political analysts are setting themselves up for another surprise if they ignore the big reasons Democrats lost this election, and what comes next. Write to kim@wsj.com. Appeared in the September 15, 2017, print edition as 'Here’s What Really Happened.'
Do I need to continue to give examples on this thread about what a dumbass Trump is and that he isn't in the same league with Clinton??? <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="">September 15, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> A police spokesperson told CNN that Trump’s comments on Scotland Yard were “pure speculation” and “unhelpful.” His comments come in contrast to his silence for two days following the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month. He justified his inability to condemn hatred by claiming he didn’t want to speak because he “didn’t know all the facts.”
Nope, not at all. For the 7th time, I think she's done with politics and she's largely irrelevant. But we've been dealing with this "Clinton is as bad as Trump" narrative on this board for months and years, and as I'm responding to the person who takes "beating a dead horse" to its utmost extreme (e.g. Andre Johnson, etc.), I am going to continue and continue and continue to make a clear distinction between the two, because that failure who occupies the White House is by far the worst we've ever had to this point. The fact that Trump was elected is a slight indictment on Clinton and her campaign, but way more of an indictment on the American people who are now ridiculed the world over for electing this buffoon. Truth.
I mean, I am by no means a fan of Trump, but like that article above says, Hillary was probably the only person in the world awful enough to let Trump win. You can go to bat for her if you like, but if I truly believed that Clinton was significantly better than Trump, I'd have voted for her rather than not voting. For the longest time I thought that's exactly what I was going to do, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. She's truly THAT awful.
Respectfully disagree, she's not that awful... I get it, you have to justify it by exaggerating... everyone does who either voted for Trump or didn't vote at all... but this is an embarrassment of historical proportions.... every week, I see and read things that continue to astound me how 40M+ could be that dumb in voting for this national embarrassment. And I don't want to hear, when he screws up worse, that "Well, how did we know?" Um, yeah, you did. Those who pretend they didn't are full of it. Everything you would look for in a President- intelligence, temperament, experience..... Clinton fits that criteria and Trump doesn't. That's not hero worship- that's truth. But, of course, Trump fans/Cilnton haters have to turn a blind eye to that. "Oh, it's great that Trump doesn't have experience... yeah, he's telling it like it is.... hey, not everybody has perfect grammar..." - all complete, utter horseshit. So, I'll sit back and smile as the Right continue to lose it over an irrelevant political figure and try to justify Trump. Hee. Hee.
That's just it, I'm not exaggerating. I don't know why some people can't accept just how awful of a candidate Hillary was and why they think they have to justify her candidacy but she's as unlikable as Trump or more and she's less trustworthy.....which is amazing given the scumbag we're talking about. I think you'd do yourself a favor by just moving on from this one and trying to forget that Hillary ever existed, the attempt to polish that turd and sell it is why Trump is currently the president. No matter how hard you try, no one is going to buy.
Coming from the person who is the textbook example of, again, beating a dead horse, I'd say..... no. As long as people try to equate Trump with Clinton, I'll continue to correct them.
LOL fair enough, all I can do is tell you that trying to sell Hillary Clinton to the masses is a futile effort, I can't stop you from trying.
Nope, not selling Hillary to the masses. I can make it easy- anytime anyone tries to equate Trump with Clinton, I'll just type: Wrong! Problem solved.
Probably- but let's face it, he's VERY quick to condemn non-white terrorism and does that cute little foot-dragging "I need more information" when it's white terrorism. You do see that, right?
You do whatever you feel like doing, I'm just pointing out that it is almost certainly futile. I'm pretty sure he condemned it the very same day it happened.....so yeah, I'm thinking you are being fooled by the spin on this one.
BTG, you're funny. Let me guess... your parents grounded you at least more than once because you had to get the last word in, right?
90% of people who hate Hillary have no clue why they hate her. Ask them why and they only have vague platitudes. She was an average candidate who's been in the political elite bubble for far too long and lacked some self-awareness in that regard. But she was far more competent and knowledgeable than our current president.
I know, not even close. And when you say that, their response is, "well, how do you explain him winning?" A lot of things, cult of personality, playing to the lowest common denominator... and yes, some did feel he was a better businessman and would bring that element into the White House. But even friends of mine who voted for him had no idea he would be this bad. They, like Trump himself, felt he would be more Presidential once he became President. I could've smacked them. As if a 70 year-old buffoon is going to change.
