Hillary Clinton and her presidential-loss, blame game of excluding herself

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

How do you figure? Things will change because they want to keep their jobs and power. It will still be more for them than others. Even when people work from within, there are outside forces putting pressure on things. This is not a one prong approach.

I never said it was a one-prong approach. But I sure would like to know what you think voting for a green party for pres did 'on the ground, as it were.

You missed the bit where, if things change, they don't get to keep their wealth and power. Not nearly at the level theyve become accustomed to, anyway. For the rich, any monetary deviation or 'power to the people' is a direct attack and most will not go for it. Those kinds of people have the job because there's 'perks' and money and power, not because most actually intend to focus on the work involved.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

I mean, it's a nice thought. But I think there's considerably too many people to get a successful effort going to dislodge the current political party strangleholds with enough concentric votes when most people get distracted in about five seconds by a half-assed bit of skullduggery in an ill-fitted suit topped by a dieing tribble as a pièce de résistance.

Need a hell of a lot more than mere voting. If someone is voting on opinion instead of fact, "Global warming vs "God Will Provide So Lets Line Us Some Pockets!"" as an example, they'll leave the logical position because the other sounds simpler. Easier. Much less work. That's true whether it's facts against opinion or opinion against opinion. In order to get the votes to back up the difficult jobs there needs to be some sort of either mass catastrophe or mass educational effort. Need good basic education in state/gov matters for the public along with squishing gerrymandering. Decent science classes wouldn't go amiss, either, for what I'd hope were obvious reasons. Oooooh, and research. Everyone should know how to at least do basic research.

There's a grain or two of truth to the "All publicity is good publicity", fortunately all FDR had to deal with was the radio and some public appearances. Try getting a guy in a wheelchair elected these days.

Sadly I do agree with you, but I think we are on the edge. Too many people are hurting in too many different ways. I think something is not only going to happen for us in the US, but for those in other countries dealing with the same issues and problems.

The question is who will answer the call and help the people first.

The "left" by definition should be the ones to do it, but they are grinding in their feet so those on the right may play it smart and capitalize on it.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

I never said it was a one-prong approach. But I sure would like to know what you think voting for a green party for pres did 'on the ground, as it were.

DemExit shows people are not going to stand for business as usual. This is just a start unless things get better. The end is not near.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

DemExit shows people are not going to stand for business as usual. This is just a start unless things get better. The end is not near.

It's not much of a start when Cheeto & Co are the new 'Reality TV' that you don't have to pay for. Exiting isn't a start, at best it's an incredibly slow prelude. A lack in one base does not automatically translate to a third party or changes, and I haven't noticed much of anything in the way of a cohesive effort to get a third party off the ground.

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

It's not much of a start when Cheeto & Co are the new 'Reality TV' that you don't have to pay for. Exiting isn't a start, at best it's an incredibly slow prelude. A lack in one base does not automatically translate to a third party or changes, and I haven't noticed much of anything in the way of a cohesive effort to get a third party off the ground.

As with most things in politics it is small groups that come together. Right now we don't really need a third party since most would still like to save the dem party.

With the mid-terms is when I think we will see a lot more being done in general. If the dems and reps don't help the people they will lose more of their base. There are already reports that Trump is losing his in key areas.


As for Trump, my money is still on he leaves office, one way or another, around the mid-terms.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Now she's blaming 39 problems, but a Hillary ain't one.

...As for Trump, my money is still on he leaves office, one way or another, around the mid-terms.

Trump is not gong anywhere unless he's forced out, and that will have to be Ryan and McConnell. Thinking he's going to walk off is incredibly naive.

Republicans in congress are not going to impeach him anytime soon. You'd better hope for a huge House loss for the 'Pubs (not likely anyway) in 2018 because that's the only way that he's ever going to be impeached.

AND there is no way he'll be resigning.

 

[MystikWizard]

^Oh yeah she did and yet she lost it. Mind telling me how much of those votes are for her and how much are simply against the Deplorable-in-Chief. We may never know but what we know is that a week or so before the election, 46% of likely voters believe that the Deplorable-in-Chief is more honest and trustworthy compared to 38% who said that it is Hillary Clinton who is more honest and trustworthy. Who would have thought that someone as sane and qualified as Hillary Clinton is viewed as less honest and trustworthy than the fringe and crazy Deplorable-in-Chief?

Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...as-trump-opens-up-an-8-point-edge-on-honesty/

There is your problem. Just because someone may be qualified does not equate to being honest and trustworthy. And she was not to enough voters that it cost her the election.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

Facts have showed that Clinton outspent the Deplorable-in-Chief 2-to-1 and we know where those $$$$ brought her.

Agent Orange didn't have to spend ANYTHING. The cable news media and radio gave him BILLIONS of dollars of absolutely-free campaign time. If the cable news channels were reporting from a horrific natural disaster or terrorist event, they couldn't break away from the live coverage fast enough to get to the more-important D...ump speech in Paducah or something.

 

[MystikWizard]

Re: What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

Agent Orange didn't have to spend ANYTHING. The cable news media and radio gave him BILLIONS of dollars of absolutely-free campaign time. If the cable news channels were reporting from a horrific natural disaster or terrorist event, they couldn't break away from the live coverage fast enough to get to the more-important D...ump speech in Paducah or something.

Donald Trump's media coverage was virtually all negative as a candidate. The media gave Hillary Clinton round the clock positive coverage and was treated as the presumptive nominee while barely in the Primaries.

So what is the next excuse?

 

[frankfrank]

How in the hell can Hillary possibly be LESS than the 0% reliable and trustworthy that Agent Orange is?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

Donald Trump's media coverage was virtually all negative as a candidate. The media gave Hillary Clinton round the clock positive coverage and was treated as the presumptive nominee while barely in the Primaries.

So what is the next excuse?

And that actually worked FOR Trump -- so many people distrust he media that their opposition resulted in support.

 

[TickTockMan]

How in the hell can Hillary possibly be LESS than the 0% reliable and trustworthy that Agent Orange is?

Easy.


Trump usually has one position, says it, then works towards it.


Hillary has two positions. A private and a public. She tells the base the public position, then works for the private position, which just happens to be usually the same as Trump's and the republican parties.


And please keep in mind Hillary herself said she has a public and private position on things. That in itself is fine, but she tends to work and or vote for the private position.

 

[MystikWizard]

Bottom line is what TickTockMan said pissed off enough people and voters simply did not trust Hillary and have had enough of the Clintons. They were willing to take their chance with an outsider as opposed to a corrupted Washington insider known for Pay for Play politics ... someone who the Left saw as a Republican-lite politician who would say or do anything to get elected, and someone who the Right also viewed as someone who would say or do anything to get elected ... and someone who was a known liar.

Republicans despised her.
Progressives didn't trust her.
Core Democrats supported her, as did the Democratic Establishment
Independents went with the Republicans and Progressives.

Despite loyal supporters, there was not enough in any of the swing states to pull off a victory and many feel she and the DNC got what they deserved.

 

[MystikWizard]

Re: What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

And that actually worked FOR Trump -- so many people distrust he media that their opposition resulted in support.

Precisely. You could say it served the Media right as after many decades, today's electorate in the day and age of the internet and social media are finally onto the agenda setting and media bias that has devolved a once respected media into a circus of entertainment and control mechanism we see today.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

^In view of the ongoing circus of horrors playing daily at The White House the media's support for Hillary Clinton during the election campaign proved that the media knew what to expect from Trump should he be elected POTUS.

 

[kallipolis]

^An avalanche of hate filled prejudice posted daily on this forum by you does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote.

Popular Vote: Clinton 65,853,516 (48.5%) votes vs. Trump 62,984,825 (46.4%)

Clinton lost the election even though she won the national popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

 

[kallipolis]

Trump usually has one position, says it, then works towards it.

Thus far Trump's work has produced failure, after failure. Some work, some disaster.

 

[medic1]

^I would not bother, i gave up, on this subject he has proven that he is more than happy to cut off his nose, to spite his face.

 

[MystikWizard]

^An avalanche of hate filled prejudice posted daily on this forum by you does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote.

Popular Vote: Clinton 65,853,516 (48.5%) votes vs. Trump 62,984,825 (46.4%)

Clinton lost the election even though she won the national popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

Winning the Presidency is obviously not based on popular vote, so that line is also rather tiresome. To put things in perspective, of 3,084 counties in the U.S., Hillary won only 487 of them, or 15.8%.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/clinton-counties/

She lost virtually all of the swing states. If you lose that many swing states and can only rely on California and New York for that popular vote, there is a problem especially being that:

Barack Obama won by the Electoral College ... twice
Bill Clinton won by the Electoral College ... twice
... and Jimmy Carter won by the Electoral College.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

What are we, 9 months since she lost? And you guys can't help but sill find something to complain about when it comes to her? Do you really have that much hatred of an individual or hold grudges that much?

As much as she might have not been a good candidate in certain people's eyes, the way people keep harping on her doesn't speak well on your character either.