The Clinton Thread II - Part 3

[regwec]

But you seem to be suggesting that (1) Europeans are rejecting uncontrolled immigration because they are precausive for well-founded reasons, and/or (2) Europeans are rejecting uncontrolled immigration because they don't like people who are different to them. I think it is unfair to allege the second if you accept the first.

 

[Greens]

I don't think they're that well-founded. We can't uproot the whole thing because a small segment of these people decided to act out.

I don't want to go into a whole thing about it. I'm just reporting what I see.

 

[Erzengel]

This is a nice story:

A "Heartbroken" New York Mom Bumps Into Hillary Clinton While Hiking

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-york-mom-bumps-hillary-clinton-hiking-chappaqua-946306

Some are saying it's staged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-fundraiser-family-hosted-ex-candidate.html

 

[Alex Murphy]

How the hell do ya just "bump" into the f***ing CLINTONS, for christ's sake?!

 

[regwec]

Who cares now? The Clintons are history.

 

[Lily Adler]

I honestly never felt Clinton truly wanted to be president other than to tick it off her political career checklist, and the legacy to being the first female president.

 

[Erzengel]

Clinton has always seemed politically ambitious to me.

 

[Sawyer]

Speaking of people I want to throw in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

 

[TheCommissioner]

Speaking of people I want to throw in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

while said vehicle is on fire

 

[Lily Adler]

Speaking of people I want to throw in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

I voted Warren.

 

[Sawyer]

Dead to me.

 

[childeroland]

So some of them voted for people they had to know couldn't win and then expected ... what? And others couldn't be bothered to vote but they can throw fireworks at the police, which accomplishes ... what?

 

[Lily Adler]

So incite a race war that will cause LA riot-level chaos? Crazy, but it just might work.

 

[Sawyer]

So some of them voted for people they had to know couldn't win and then expected ... what? And others couldn't be bothered to vote but they can throw fireworks at the police, which accomplishes ... what?

I don't imagine it's all non-Hillary voters, but the idea that there are ANY involved, much less leading the protests?

F*** those f***ers. Their bulls*** played a part in this.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't imagine it's all non-Hillary voters, but the idea that there are ANY involved, much less leading the protests?

F*** those f***ers. Their bulls*** played a part in this.

You can blame the Democratic base for being lazy, but they are not only ones to blame. Hillary did not run a great campaign and made some assumptions that cost her:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...-hillary-clinton/?client=ms-android-rogers-ca

Almost no one was excited for her and guess what, the she is better then Trump argument was only going to her so far.

 

[TheCommissioner]

perfect storm of apathy, campaign missteps, 3rd party jagoffs, oh and a whole lot of racism and sexism

"Real America" put up with the darkie in the WH, but they will be damned if a WOMAN gets that job

 

[The Overlord]

perfect storm of apathy, campaign missteps, 3rd party jagoffs, oh and a whole lot of racism and sexism

"Real America" put up with the darkie in the WH, but they will be damned if a WOMAN gets that job

Frankly I think other women in politics are more popular then Hillary, like Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama. I always judge politicians on how much I like their policies, rather then their gender. I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin, just because she is a woman, because she is an idiot.


I also think its unfair to lump in people who voted third party and those who choose not to vote. Not voting is simple laziness, but its not lazy to choose to vote for a third party and you can argue the merits of voting for a third party, but was the obligation on people to vote for Hillary or the obligation on Hillary to convince more people to vote for her? Really the flaws are with the 2 party system and how outdated the US election system is. The GOP is the nasty, but committed to win party and the Dems are a lame party who are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

They only inspire when they have a likeable, charismatic person like Obama in charge, otherwise, they are such an uninspiring party, they let the GOP walk over them all the time, even when they are in power. I will say something, if you voted for a Third Party in Ohio or Florida, that is crazy, but doing that in Massachusetts would not have mattered. You can say it mattered in Michigan, but I think losing blue collar voters to Trump in that state is what really hurt her, not some college student who voted third party.

In Canada, we don't have a electoral college, we vote by districts (called ridings) and the party that wins the most ridings, wins. We don't give every riding in Ontario to one party, because they got the most votes there. That seems like a more fair system, IMO.

The problem with Hillary is the right wing machine smeared her for 2 decades and she did little to inspire her base, infact she took getting the Obama coalition for granted. That was a lethal combo, her enemies were galvanized and her allies were uninspired.

Don't get me wrong, I really wish she had won and I feel her sorry for at this point and any Dems who couldn't be bothered to vote deserve a lot of blame here, but at the end of the day it was her job to win and she didn't do it. I wish she had won, but I wonder if she wasn't a bad pick for this election cycle. We are heading for bad times, because of these factors.

 

[Mysteryman]

You can blame the Democratic base for being lazy, but they are not only ones to blame. Hillary did not run a great campaign and made some assumptions that cost her:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...-hillary-clinton/?client=ms-android-rogers-ca

Almost no one was excited for her and guess what, the she is better then Trump argument was only going to her so far.

With Obama i think that there was a fair amount of enthusiasm both times.
Not with Hillary.

 

[Erzengel]

I don't think it really was they didn't want a woman in the white house at least for the majority. I just think that a lot of people didn't want Hillary.

 

[Clark-Kent]

A lot of people also felt the economy is so stagnant and she's run a campaign based off a of popular President. She did manage to convince people of continued Obama policies. Problem is with GDP going nowhere, less good full time jobs/more part time low wage work, etc... They felt, "We can stay where we are with her, and continue being stagnant. Or we can take the risk of change, and see what happens."

 

[regwec]

Stagnation may seem Halcyon with hindsight. I think the three most significant risks of Trump's presidency are:

1) A trade war. The Chinese are not going to be bullied into revaluing the Yuan in order to help American industry. The EU is notoriously protective of its largest member states' economic interests, and petty and undiplomatic with external countries of which it disapproves politically. I can foresee tariffs and quotas springing up everywhere, as well as arbitrary tax and antitrust raids on big companies. The WTO may be unable to take the strain.

2) A nuclear war. Trump appears to be very cosy with Putinist Russia, and otherwise isolationist in instinct. This presents its own risks, however. An emboldened North Korea is one. An undefended Baltic in which the arrival of Russian tanks may invite the response of a nuclear-armed Marine le Pen is another.

3) A cultural war. We are in a period of considerable risk at the moment. Putin's supporters and detractors should try to calm the rhetoric. The risk will return once Trump enters office and has the opportunity to enact his agenda, however.

Greater environmental damage is less a risk than a certainty. It is not merely that Trump will slacken carbon reduction rules domestically and extricate America from its associated international commitments, but that much of the rest of the world will take license from this. Can you really imagine Trump keeping pressure on the Brazilian government to prevent destruction of rainforest habitat, on the Chinese government to crack down on the illegal trade in medicines extracted from critically endangered animals, or on the Japanese to limit the hunting of whales? "Soft" issues like these will be greatly affected by a shift in emphasis from the Whitehouse. Climate deals will become an impossibility if the POTUS isn't interested.

 

[Victarion]

I don't think it really was they didn't want a woman in the white house at least for the majority. I just think that a lot of people didn't want Hillary.

This. There's very little I agree with Dr Stein on, but I would have voted for her or Michelle (we probably agree on more than Dr Stein) before I willingly voted for Hillary if we're talking about voting simply to put a woman in the white house.

 

[auditor]

I don't imagine it's all non-Hillary voters, but the idea that there are ANY involved, much less leading the protests?

F*** those f***ers. Their bulls*** played a part in this.

Its like "Are you serious? "

I think they played a huge part in this. When people see liberals hating on Hillary, that makes other people more susceptible to want to hate on her too. For them to be protesting now is so hypocritical.

 

[Legendver2]

What she up to nowadays?

 

[auditor]

What she up to nowadays?

Pinching herself to see if she wakes up.