{myadvertisements[zone_1]}
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump
#1
Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control.

The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey's involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks' theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-...mp-n743581
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#2
Of course, it couldn't have been the "deplorables" comment, her generally abysmal campaign, her horrid track record, her incessant playing of the "gender card" or her deleting emails, lying about deleting emails then crying about being investigated about lying about deleting emails. Nope, she did everything perfectly.

Not that I think that Donald Trump is the perfect candidate, but we'll see how he does in time. But Hillary ... <shudder>.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#3
Not liking Hillary Clinton is not misogyny. The dozens of articles in the Guardian in the days after she lost, about Hillary Clinton being a woman, were enough to make a cat sick.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#4
(04-07-2017, 08:34 PM)silverfish Wrote: Not liking Hillary Clinton is not misogyny.  The dozens of articles in the Guardian in the days after she lost, about Hillary Clinton being a woman, were enough to make a cat sick.

But that is the classic playbook of the modern "progressive".

While they play lip service to tolerance, diversity, free speech and listening to the ideas of others, they can't really just silence the opinions of others, so they have to immediately charge, try and convict them in one phrase of being intolerant, therefore by definition, wrong and unworthy of a voice. "Racist", "Nazi", "homophobic", "trans-phobic", "xenophobic" and such labels are intended to immediately render the target of such words to be impotent. However, it immediately discredits the accuser as far as I am concerned.

Another favourite way to silence thought criminals is the accusation of "hate speech". The whole concept of "hate speech" is entirely foreign to my thinking. How does simply outlawing the saying of certain things even considered in a supposedly free and open society? For me, I personally think that you should be able to take any stand in a debate, and have the ability to defend that stand with data. To make it illegal to take certain stands is truly bizarre.

It boggles my mind for this group to be supposedly all about doing away with race and gender that absolutely everything is about race and gender. Just like "Antifa", the "anti fascists" who run around acting very much like, well fascists.

The fact that this entire movement appears to be self destructing pleases me greatly.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#5
This is one of those classic blind men and the elephant stories. You know the story, when a group of blind men are told about elephants and then each one grabs part of the elephant to describe it. One guy grabs the trunk and thinks it is like a snake. Another grabs the tail and thinks it is like a broom. Another grabs a leg and thinks it is like a tree, etc.

The problem is that there are a lot of reasons that can reasonably explain why Hilary Clinton lost. It was actually a very close election so any one facet could be crucial. Here are a list of the many possible reasons...

Misogynists like matlock not wanting a woman prez., check.
Neo-nazi's...check
anti-immigration positions..check
Comey and the FBI...check
Fake news and the Fox/Breitbart propaganda arm...check
Hilary and the Pelosi crowd losing touch with the left wing of the democratic party....check
Her lack of appeal to the hard hat democrats and rust belt workers...check.
voter suppression...check.
wikileaks and russian hacking..check.
resentment from ordinary folk to the jet-setting Clinton foundation....check
an outdated electoral college system....check.
Her performance as a secretary of state (justified or not)...check

Anyone of the above reasons could have caused, and certainly contributed, to her loss. When the margins are tight, a lot of factors can be relevant.

I guess the point is she did lose the election and they need to move on and focus on what they can change. She left a lot on the table. Poor debate performance and her inability to connect with the working class was decisive. If she was able to do those 2 things a little better, then the wikileaks and comey stuff would have made little difference. Instead, she probably thought she wrapped the election up a few times after a Trump gaffe (like grab her pussy comment) thinking that most politicians would be dead here, and so will Trump. However, Trump got a pass since he was not an ordinary politician. It was at those times, she needed to go blitzkrieg on him instead of playing defense and letting up.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#6
Matlock isn't a misogynist, and he would probably be happy with almost any other woman as president other than Hillary Clinton. The right-on newspaper the Guardian is always making ad hominem bitchy comments about our prime minister Theresa May, such as what she wears and also attacks famous women who have said that they like her, such as Kate Bush; really nasty passive-aggresssive stuff, but when it is about Hillary Clinton, then she is a woman.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#7
Classic politician. Nothing is ever their fault.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#8
(04-07-2017, 08:34 PM)silverfish Wrote: Not liking Hillary Clinton is not misogyny.  The dozens of articles in the Guardian in the days after she lost, about Hillary Clinton being a woman, were enough to make a cat sick.

I agree. None of Hillary's reasons why she lost would have changed my mind about Trump. Her demeanor and ugly smirk was such a big turn off no matter how articulate she was with her rhetoric.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#9
(04-10-2017, 04:25 PM)tdogg Wrote: This is one of those classic blind men and the elephant stories. You know the story, when a group of blind men are told about elephants and then each one grabs part of the elephant to describe it. One guy grabs the trunk and thinks it is like a snake. Another grabs the tail and thinks it is like a broom. Another grabs a leg and thinks it is like a tree, etc.

The problem is that there are a lot of reasons that can reasonably explain why Hilary Clinton lost. It was actually a very close election so any one facet could be crucial. Here are a list of the many possible reasons...

Misogynists like matlock not wanting a woman prez., check.
Neo-nazi's...check
anti-immigration positions..check
Comey and the FBI...check
Fake news and the Fox/Breitbart propaganda arm...check
Hilary and the Pelosi crowd losing touch with the left wing of the democratic party....check
Her lack of appeal to the hard hat democrats and rust belt workers...check.
voter suppression...check.
wikileaks and russian hacking..check.
resentment from ordinary folk to the jet-setting Clinton foundation....check
an outdated electoral college system....check.
Her performance as a secretary of state (justified or not)...check

Anyone of the above reasons could have caused, and certainly contributed, to her loss. When the margins are tight, a lot of factors can be relevant.

I guess the point is she did lose the election and they need to move on and focus on what they can change. She left a lot on the table. Poor debate performance and her inability to connect with the working class was decisive. If she was able to do those 2 things a little better, then the wikileaks and comey stuff would have made little difference. Instead, she probably thought she wrapped the election up a few times after a Trump gaffe (like grab her pussy comment) thinking that most politicians would be dead here, and so will Trump. However, Trump got a pass since he was not an ordinary politician. It was at those times, she needed to go blitzkrieg on him instead of playing defense and letting up.

what is she going to blitzkrieg with? All of her defects?

Why defend that miserable slime-bucket loser? What is it you like about her?

And, calling out Matlock as a misogynist in relation to Hillary makes little sense. Mat has no problem with feminine women.

(04-12-2017, 12:58 AM)horseshoe Wrote:
(04-07-2017, 08:34 PM)silverfish Wrote: Not liking Hillary Clinton is not misogyny.  The dozens of articles in the Guardian in the days after she lost, about Hillary Clinton being a woman, were enough to make a cat sick.

I agree. None of Hillary's reasons why she lost would have changed my mind about Trump. Her demeanor and ugly smirk was such a big turn off no matter how articulate she was with her rhetoric.

She wasn't particularly articulate, but she was "deserving." She deserved to be President because she was a women (alledgedly), she was wonderful, she was blah, blah, blah. Well the only thing she really was, was Bill Clinton's wife. But luckily, that wasn't enough to win it for her sorry rear!

She never had any business even being in the race. She's to full of herself to be embarrassed. I'd put her on a par with Bush Jr. Two less than nothings who thought they were everything.

defending a child rapist and then smirking it up ............
may her, and her supporters, rot ...............

Hillary might be be more of a misogynist that Mattie. Could we poll Bill's accusers for a read?
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#10
I think the thing that most put me off her was her sense of entitlement

She thought it was 'her turn'

She's had 30 years in power has nothing productive to show for it.

I'm no fan of Trump either - with hindsight almost any of the Republican candidates could have beaten her.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}