Are the people who put hatred of Hillary above all else happy, now?

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

mark_alfred wrote:

I don't really follow American politics too closely, but in this case it seems clear that Clinton was quite qualified for the job whereas Trump was not.  She was stellar in the debates, ran an organized campaign, laid out solid policy (even cooperating with Sanders, whom she defeated for the leadership, in drawing it up), and gave reasonably good speeches and interviews.  I believe she also had past political experience as both Senator of New York and as Secretary of State under Obama.  Trump, on the other hand, has no prior political experience and cares for no one but himself.  He has no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.  The fact that he won is bewildering.  It is simply a sign that people have become really stupid.

 

Mark,

 

Clinton did really well in the debates because on at least one occasion she was given the debate questions by a CNN host. It's easy to ace a test when you have the answers, yes?

Clinton is in bed with all kinds of shitty people. The Clinton foundation recieved some 25 MILLION dollars as a gift from Saudi Arabia.  That 25 million dollars is a bribe.  Clinton knows her way around the political dance floor but shes corrupt. It will probably be years before the full extent becomes known.

Trump won because people are tired of the corrupt government and not being listened to. The same reason thry overthrew the British. People are so fed up they're willing to take a chance on the unknown.

SeekingAPolitic...

Why did hillary lose.

1.  She took the mantle of the defender of the status quo in the race.  **** No other issue destroyed her more.

2. Trump ran on jobs,jobs,jobs, and trade. 

3.  Her baggage with the server was ever constant bleeding wound.

4.  When asked why are you running for prez.  Trump was to make america great again.  Can one remember the slogan that Clinton ran on.

Thats my top four.

 

mark_alfred

Paladin1, Trump has no redeemable characteristics whatsoever.  From what I gather he was initially a landlord who regularly booted out people on a discriminatory basis.  Later, when the middle class had left downtown New York, taking with them the tax base, and then banks froze out the city by refusing to buy bonds unless they could control the agenda and impose harsh austerity measures in the mid-70s, Trump suddenly cashed in.  Realizing there's no future to rental apartments as government no longer subsidized them, he got loans from banks and grants from government to build fancy playgrounds for the rich (including casinos) to allegedly beautify New York.  He's a shallow opportunist.  Sure, there's likely cobwebs in the closet of Clinton's time as Secretary of State, but the situation overseas is a hugely difficult one due to (I'm guessing) the absolutely evil workings of Kissinger.  Clinton, I believe, is not like Kissinger.  I believe Clinton did strive for the best as Secretary of State.  So I don't buy all the horseshit that's thrown her way.  She clearly was the more qualified candidate.  It was idiotic to elect Trump.

bekayne

Paladin1 wrote:

Clinton did really well in the debates because on at least one occasion she was given the debate questions by a CNN host. It's easy to ace a test when you have the answers, yes?

That was against Sanders, not Trump

Paladin1 wrote:

Clinton is in bed with all kinds of shitty people. 

And Trump isn't? 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

I guess you can afford to.  You know that he doesn't take office until January 20?

I actually make $11 an hour, have seriously thought about using a cardboard sign and a busy street corner as a source of income, and for most of my adult live have never been in a financial position to stand on my own 2 feet. Plus, many other people I know in similar situations don't even care who Donald Trump is because to them politics is a game where the people get screwed over no matter what and nothing ever changes for them. But I do appreciate you making baseless assumptions about me simply because I refuse to hyperventilate over the election of a candidate I don't like.

But you're right about when Trump takes office. I'll check the eastern sky on the morning of January 21 and report back with my findings.

The Republicans may replace Obamacare with a system that could take away health coverage from approximately 20 million people. I know it wouldn't be a sunny day for me if my health care insurance was taken from me.

Unionist

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but yeah, I'm happy that the ghastly Mrs. Clinton will now be put out to pasture.  How anyone here could support this bloodthirsty war criminal and corporatist vampire is beyond me.

The one bright light in all this darkness is the re-appearance of al-Q here. Thanks for coming, thanks for the above comment, and please stick around! We need your voice. And I'm sorry about the demise of enmasse.

mark_alfred

What happened to enmasse?  ETA:  I know it went down, but I don't know why.  Anyone know?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Why did hillary lose.

1.  She took the mantle of the defender of the status quo in the race.  **** No other issue destroyed her more.

2. Trump ran on jobs,jobs,jobs, and trade. 

3.  Her baggage with the server was ever constant bleeding wound.

4.  When asked why are you running for prez.  Trump was to make america great again.  Can one remember the slogan that Clinton ran on.

Thats my top four.

 

Her slogan was "Stronger Together"...the problem was, it didn't say what they were stronger together THAN.

Than again, the father of your current prime minister once led his party to the brink of defeat on the deeply meaningful slogan "The Land Is Strong"(a phrase that meant that, as long as he stayed in office, no one would fall throught the Earth's crust).

mark_alfred

It was mostly only aged cranky people who backed Trump.  Youth solidly supported Clinton.  See below a representation of the 18 to 25 vote.

mark_alfred
josh

Paladin1 wrote:

Trump won because people are tired of the corrupt government and not being listened to. The same reason thry overthrew the British. People are so fed up they're willing to take a chance on the unknown.

Then how come more people voted for Clinton?

Pondering

I can vote for someone who is destroying my life for their own benefit.

I can vote for someone who may or may not destroy my life but will harm my enemies.

I may be screwed in both cases, but with the second at least I get a shot in at my enemy.

 

 

Paladin1

bekayne wrote:

That was against Sanders, not Trump

That was against Trump.

Quote:

And Trump isn't? 

Sure, Trump is. Trumpt ISN'T accepting 25 million dollars worth of "gifts" from fucked up Saudai Arabia though.

Any way you look at it Clinton accepted bribes from SA.

 

What do you think SA's response was once Trump won?   lol

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Trump won because people are tired of the corrupt government and not being listened to. The same reason thry overthrew the British. People are so fed up they're willing to take a chance on the unknown.

Then how come more people voted for Clinton?

As many people passed on voting for either of them as voted for BOTH of them. Isn't it an American truism that if you produce a shitty product people will just vote with their feet and not buy any of it.  

What I find impossible to fathom is that half of Americans vote for parties that agree on the need to overthrow other people's governments because they are not democratic and the other half refuse to participate in the sham. Talk about a disconnected reality in a society.

quizzical

Paladin1 wrote:
Sure, Trump is. Trumpt ISN'T accepting 25 million dollars worth of "gifts" from fucked up Saudai Arabia though.

Any way you look at it Clinton accepted bribes from SA.

 

What do you think SA's response was once Trump won?   lol

surely you're not naive enough to believe in so called public spats between politicians? smoke and mirrors.

have you never researched Trump's investments in SA? i can see not. you want to keep your bias confirmed.

Quote:
....The companies tied to the apparent project in Saudi Arabia may be the most puzzling. In August, Trump incorporated a total of 8 firms with the name Jeddah. Four were dissolved within months; the remaining four remain active. There has been no public disclosure about the purpose of any of the companies.

Trump’s apparent business efforts in Saudi Arabia could raise eyebrows, especially because he said in February that the nation “blew up the World Trade Center,” an apparent reference to the 9/11 attacks.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danielwagner/trumps-saudi-business?utm_term=.ck...

 

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

josh wrote:
Look, there were tens of thousands of whites in the Midwest who had voted for Obama twice, who voted for Trump. So for them it can't be race. Rather Trump's economic message of bringing back jobs and attacking trade deals appealed to them.

Clinton got something in the order of 8 million fewer votes than what Obama got in 2012. However, trump also got slightly fewer votes than what Romney got in 2012. This suggests that there was a sizable constituency of Obama voters who didn't vote this time round, but no sizable constiency who voted for both Obama AND Trump.

So could we please stop with this line of reasoning.

josh

Wrong. Votes are still being counted and when things are done Clinton should be about 3 million down and Trump nearly the same or higher than Romney. And where did a good chunk of those 3 million go? To Trump. There were also many people who voted for Romney who voted for Clinton. This belief that everyone who voted for Trump was a racist might be comforting in theory but it doesn't stand up to cold hard political,science.

mark_alfred

That someone who led such a repulsive campaign as Trump did could get elected is telling.  It's a statement by people that they've lost faith in politics.  For people to test the system by turning the election into the "Feast of Fools" in which Donald "Quasimodo" Trump is chosen President is practically a dare to the system.  If the system survives, then it means the role of President and politicians generally is meaningless. If the system collapses, as one would expect if talent and integrity in the President were required to have a thriving system, then the people can admit their cynicism was misplaced.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Things are getting really ugly and we're only 4 days after the election.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/12/501836108/anti-trump-d...

How bad will get?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Noam Chomsky made a prediction 6 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UwG0yizFw0

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pages