Hell, anyone with half a brain (barring that, anyone on this board) could have come up with a list of questions Hillary would likely have been asked. It wasn’t rocket surgery. :rolleyes:
The articles coming up in the search seem to be mainly from March 2017. But Rachel maddow covered this stuff months before that. (You know, that retard with the vagina.)
So basically you tend to call people retarded because they figured something out before you did. I understand but it’s not a path to wisdom.
This is false. I am the OP. I never once mentioned Hillary, except to you, here, pointing out that this is not actually a thread about Hillary.
I have also never made a post that makes fun of the fact that the Russian probe is about hacks that revealed embarrassing facts about Hillary - largely because I don’t believe that.
The Russian hack is an embarrassment to all Americans
The Russian hack is a devastating assault upon the American Electoral system which is the bedrock of our success as a nation.
The Russian hack was carried out in support of a man with longstand shady ties to Russian power and money
The Russian hack was about putting a Russian agent in the Whitehouse - a fact which led to Donald Trump putting Russian agents in the actual Oval Office because he’s afraid to say no to Vladimir Putin:
This is not about Hillary. It has never been about Hillary. Hillary herself has been completely irrelevant since the moment that Obama told her to concede.
Your repeated insistence that it’s the liberals who can’t let go of Hillary is a lie, and it’s one your repeat ad nauseum - just like all the various Russian propaganda agents who’ve been spreading fake news for a year now. What a funny coincidence.
Also, just so we’re clear, this post is not about Hillary. The Russian investigation is not about Hillary. This forum is not about Hillary. This board is not about Hillary. My accusation that you are repeating Russian agitprop is not about Hillary. My opinion of you, that you are, at best, a danger to yourself and others, is not about Hillary. Your Mom is not about Hillary. My toejam is not about Hillary. My dog, who is waiting to be walked, is not about Hillary. The shit that will momentarily issue forth from his bowels is, wait for it - not about Hillary.
You, Damuri Ajashi, on the other, you are ALL ABOUT Hillary. Funny.
When he’s not all about his gun fetish and being traumatized by the sight of black people. His psychopathies are multiple; his inability to grasp the multi-quote feature singular.
Gee. Which Orange Fascist Loofah Faced Shit Gibbon is it, that keeps bringing her up and keeps ranting about “electoral landslides” - with stupid fucking maps and everydamnfuckingthing?
Here’s some words to the Repubs about Hillary and the popular vote loss, in the words of Dumb Ass Chuck Grassely, “suck it up and move on”
Oh, be nice to DA. This is an internet message board and clinton has a vagina. That’s supposed to be sure-fire. It’s not his fault that that shit don’t flush no more.
As a person who at least aspires to being a fan of precise and accurate speech, I respectfully request that you refrain from referring to Mrs. Clinton as a “shitty candidate.” A “shitty candidate” is a candidate who would, if successful at achieving the position (s)he seeks, would likely do a shitty job of performing the functions of the position (see, for instance, the candidate, who, despite being shitty, actually attained the position under discussion).
There is every reason to expect that, had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency, she would have done an excellent job at it. Just as President Obama did. Therefore, whatever her flaws as a campaigner, Hillary Clinton was an excellent candidate.
Feel free to conclude that we had a shitty electorate, considering the result.
On paper, she is an excellent candidate. But when people describe her as a shitty or otherwise less than optimal candidate, they usually seem to be taking into account the lack of a truly enthusiastic support base for her outside of a small core of fans (particularly as compared to Obama or Bernie), her relatively wooden speech delivery, and her difficulties appealing to working class voters given her more centrist positions and Wall Street speech issues/lack of transparency. The biggest problem was the pre-established negative views of her among a decent sized portion of the electorate and how ongoing controversies fed into some of those negative perceptions of her - like she was ethically unmoored, lacked a strong set of policy convictions, and most importantly had something to hide. Whether any of these were true or not was besides the point, since past Bill Clinton scandals, Benghazi, Wall Street speech secrecy, and later the email controversy all helped reinforce some of these perceptions in those groups to varying degrees.
Yes, there isn’t any real question that Trump suffers from all of these issues to a much greater degree, but it seems like Hillary’s issues and how they fed into existing preconceptions and opinions put them on a more even playing field with some voters.
Only with the imbecilic, and the voters who actively hate the principles and shared values that supposedly make America a worthwhile country to support. So, like I said, a shitty electorate.
Plenty of Democrats and independents (the latter including myself) held their noses and voted for Hillary while agreeing to some degree with a few of the perceptions of her negative qualities. Plenty of others held their noses and voted for Trump while also agreeing to some degree of the perceptions of her negative qualities but may have been tipped onto the other side by single issues that they are particularly passionate about (abortion rights, anti-free trade issues and the accurate perception that Hillary was perfectly fine with free trade before making a swift 180 change when in the middle of the primary campaign with Bernie, naively believed that Trump would be immune from Wall Street influence because he was already rich as compared to cosy and compromised like Hillary, etc.).
Regardless of her impressive credentials and experience, she has a lot of perceived personality flaws and political limitations as a candidate that would also affect her performance in office and ability to get things done. I certainly don’t think everyone who didn’t vote for Hillary, for whatever reason, is an imbecile. It’s just that a not insignificant number of people who voted for Trump were likely naive suckers or were openly willing to sacrifice their overall convictions on single issue items.
By wasting campaign funds and efforts to hold rallies in states that there was no question she would take instead of campaigning in states that she actually needed to work to win. She made multiple stops in safe areas like NY and CA, and was the first candidate since 1972 to not even bother showing up to Wisconsin (a supposedly blue state she lost). She chose to lose the actual election to boost her popular vote margin, and her supporters seem unable to explain why that’s a good trade-off.
And no, the actual election mechanism explicitly spelled out in the constitution, in use for centuries, and talked about a lot in an election less than two decades ago is not a ‘technicality’ that she somehow overlooked.
