Why did Clinton get her clock cleaned

and what would be wrong with that? what do they bring to the table other than people in need of welfare and other social supports?

I don't read foofie's posts. That's all I will say about it.

Quite a bit. You're just being argumentative.

Abe Lincoln already gave the answer to secessionists. Not just no, but hell no.

That's already the case under the present system, where the candidates focus most of their energy on so called swing states.

Now you tell me? I'm the one that lived in the regimented military as an enlisted man. No Bachelor Officer's Quarters for me. But, aside from my humble life, any superiority complex you think I have was foisted on me by my experiences in school and the aptitude tests one takes when enlisting.

And, you, in my opinion, are just a product of your set of experiences, as I am also. And, that is where many misconstrue my avoidance of many as a superiority complex. I just give credence to the belief that, yes, Jews are different; not inherently, but from the world view inculcated from childhood. So, it is easy for the average non-Jew to believe they are being snubbed, based on a superiority complex. It is just a lack of comfort with the world view of the masses, based on being the majority. Example: In today's society many make an attempt to treat everyone in a friendly manner, since the masses seem to have an inherent desire to be "liked." I take for granted most folks are not comfortable with me, and could care less if they like me or not. My childhood experiences was still the time when Christian neighbors did not greet my parents, except for one foreign neighbor. You might think society's past is not remembered after only a few decades. But, let me bid you adieu, since I am wasting your time, and I believe that is not ethical behavior on my part.

You seem to be quite misinformed, in my opinion, perhaps, by Hollywood's depiction of a certain demographic. However, they might have a different view of history, and also someone owns all that red state land. Land is not cheap. As a non U.S.A. citizen your opinion is sort of presumptuous, in my opinion.

You shouldn't. Thank you.

I am wasting your time; that is not ethical behavior on my part. I bid you adieu.

Adieu, Foufette.

Given your evident fondness for old memories of distant snubs I fear you won't ever escape these preoccupations, no matter how distracting they may be. That is a choice, but I believe an unwise one on your part.

What I do with my time is my choice and my responsibility: no ethical issue there for you at all.

Bye.

The woman had been in the crosshairs of the US right for thirty years, having had the misfortune of being married to that embarrassment of a politician known as Bill Clinton. The amount of sheer garbage spewed by talk radio and right wing foundations was overwhelming. Serial killer, lesbian, running a child sex ring — she held up through it all, though, and most mainstream Dems saw the propaganda for what it was and defended her.

She got good marks for her work as a NY senator and she was tireless as SoS. So you had a core group of Dems who loved her — I've actually met some of these people — and a larger group who thought she was unfairly maligned. I think prospective candidates just assumed she was going to get the nomination and win the election. And that was the problem — the coronation just seemed inevitable. Besides her core group no one else felt any passion for her candidacy. She might have prevailed against Jeb! or even Cruz, but no one had envisioned Trump's emergence and his success with the lower middle class voters.

It's easy enough, after the game is over, to point to this and that as the "reason she lost". But she came so close to winning that I find the deeper arguments about her weakness unconvincing. American voters just tend to lurch from one party to another. The narrative is "throw the bums out" — Clinton was the epitome of an establishment politician and it wasn't a good year for establishment politicians. Things like the "Black Lives Matter" movement provoked resentment that Trump could cash in on. I mean, could anyone in the Clinton campaign have predicted that crowds would be chanting "Lock her up!" — led by the GOP candidate himself? Insurgents generate excitement. Caretakers and defenders of the status quo not so much.

She would not have made a great president anyway. She represents power and wealth and has no connection to the people. Democrats seem to think she deserved to win, just because she has been in the wings so long. Establishment Dems are only slightly better than Republicans.

So you prefer Trump?

Anybody who sees my posts on this site has never seen a post from me that promotes Trump. I merely pointed out that the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

I was just asking, honestly. I'm trying to keep an open mind on Trump.

I get it. From my perspective this is the most screwed up the US could get and not simply fly to pieces.

Especially since shed'd be subject to one "investigation" after another.
But at least the EPA would have remained functional, Planned Parenthood would be off the hook, and we wouldn't be talking about drilling more oil on public lands and offshore.

Last time I checked the USA was a corporate capitalist country, a democracy in name only.

No, the establishment thought she deserved the nomination. No one deserves to win.

They're better on the issues but they're just as sleazy. Why wouldn't it make more sense to give up on the Democratic Party and either join the Republican Party en masse and push it to the left or start a real socialist party and lose elections forever but at least maintain a measure of self-respect?

Right now I am with Bernie Sanders' efforts. If he fails, I am done with both major parties.

Regardless of one's political leanings, it simply isn't believable that a campaign that ran like a well oiled machine and was led by a flawless candidate who demonstrated over and over that she both had a coherent vision for the nation and connected with voters was defeated by leaked e-mails that, at worst, confirmed what millions of voters already believed. There were no stunning revelations that dramatically exposed Clinton as unfit for the office, let alone a criminal. Anyone holding onto the fantasy that the Russians actually interfered in the vote count is a deluded fool.

Who was behind the the leaks is immaterial in terms of their impact on the election. The Russians may have engineered the leaks but they couldn't make anyone believe that they said something important about Democrats and Clinton.

Just about all of the experts agreed that it was Clinton's race to lose, and she lost. Why now should anyone believe she (and her campaign which she led) are not the reasons she lost?

I don't know how much of the book is accurate, but if Democrats want to persist in blaming her loss solely on Russian interference, that will be great for Republicans. Actually though, they're not all doing this. There are plenty who blame her and her staff blowing what, for them, was a sure thing and, as a result, giving the nation Trump. It's simply that the Russian interference excuse is an effective weapon against Trump and for that reason they're not going to give it up.

The question is whether or not they understand why, in the absence of the leaked e-mail, she would have lost anyway, and it doesn't appear that they do.

They're first opportunity to recognize their weakness was when Nancy Pelosi was contested for the Minority leadership of the House and the message was "Nothing wrong with us, we need to stick with the people who got us where we are today."

Their next opportunity was when they had to select a new leader of the DNC and it came down to two members of their Identity Politics caucus.

The Democrats confuse identity politics and it's inherent fixation with often obscure and absurd grievance and victim status with leftist ideology. If they made a real effort to explain to white working class voters how their left-wing policies will help them as well as minorities, and put a lid on judging and punishing thought, they might have a chance to win them over and thereby win elections

Socialist don't have to be outrageous. They don't have to be seen as enemies of the police and military. They don't have to be seen as attempting to tear down and/or change every traditional American value. The don't have to be seen as supporting or making excuses for rioters. And yet for a vast majority of the voters they need, this is how they do seem.

They need these voters because despite all the moaning, groaning and cursing, the Electoral College is not going away. Three or four or twenty million more liberal Californian votes won't mean anything more than they will get that State's full slate of electoral votes.

Theoretically, at least, if all of their socialist policies are put into place, America will become a much better place to live for all of us. More prosperity and less personal angst. In such an environment, quite a few of the ills upon which they are fixated will solve themselves and the others can then be addressed by Socialist leaders who have gained valuable capital with the people by making their personal lots in life much better.

As long as Democrats are considered the party of social extremists, who assume anyone who doesn't agree with their notions are deplorable, their only hope is that elected Republicans will screw up big time, and open the door for them.

Republicans have their own baggage but one thing they don't do that the Democrats consistently do is overestimate how many people in the US think like them.