7
   

How pathetic can Hillary Clinton get.

 
 
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 05:55 am
Hillary Clinton still thinks that she was owed the White House. It was this attitude, more than anything else, that explains why she lost the election.

Let's face it; Hillary Clinton was never a good candidate. She came with baggage from the War on Crime to her email scandal (which was her fault). She made the election about her, rather than about issues ("I'm with her" was a stupid slogan). And she attacked voters as "deplorables". She lost because she was a flawed candidate who ran a crappy campaign that turned people off. She did not lose because of Bernie. She did now lose because of Sexism. In any election there is a loser... she deserved the role.

The Democrats need to find another candidate like Obama. Obama spoke to ideals without making the election about himself. Obama avoided drama and worked to explain controversies rationally.

Her new scorched-earth book is not what the country needs right now.
 
View best answer, chosen by maxdancona
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 03:39 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Obama spoke to ideals without making the election about himself. Obama avoided drama and worked to explain controversies rationally.



I agree with everything you've written but the above.

The 2012 election wasn't about him? Give me a break.

He avoided drama?

"We are the ones we've been waiting for!"

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
centrox
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 03:46 pm
Why is it that right-wing Americans are so repulsive? They make cane toads seem sexy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 04:02 pm
@centrox,
Why is it effete British leftists are so obnoxious? They make Justin Beiber seem like the personification of grace.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 04:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Really Finn, you can't see the difference between the Obama campaign and the Hillary campaign?

Whatever you think about Obama as a person or as a politician, his campaign was focused on issues. Maybe he wasn't speaking to you, but he not only spoke to his base, his message also resonated with a large part of the American society. When he made a gaffe (and yes, he made a couple big ones including the "clinging to guns" comment) he quickly got back on message.

Hillary's campaign slogan was "I'm with her" and her primary message was "Vote for me because I am owed this". When she made a gaffe she responded by being offended that anyone noticed. (Imagine if Obama's slogan was "I'm with the brother" Wink ).
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 05:17 pm
@maxdancona,
Oh, I see the difference, but that has little to do with what I wrote.
0 Replies
 
tibbleinparadise
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 08:45 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm at moderate Republican / conservative and would have gladly voted Democrat if they presented a better candidate than Hillary.

As a conservative white male from the south, I apologise to the free world for the bafoon in the Whitehouse.
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 09:55 pm
How pathetic can she get?

Well, she can go on YouTube with teardrop-smeared mascara, in bad lighting, and screech "Why? Why didn't you think I should be your President?" And the video could get a mere 96 views.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 10:46 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Hillary Clinton still thinks that she was owed the White House. It was this attitude, more than anything else, that explains why she lost the election.

I don't believe she ever said that, but she ran her ass off for the job for a number of years, and if she was denied it by illegal help to her opponent from a hostile foreign power, then she does.

Not saying any conclusive proof has emerged that she lost it because of Russian interference, but discoveries of Russia hacking the voting registration rolls indicate that's a possibility.

Stop being such a sucker for the conservatives and going along with their "But The Real Issue Is Still How Bad Hillary Is" dodge. Trump's got illegal tie-ins for over a decade, they're being uncovered by Mueller, the Congressional committees and the press, and the right is desperate for everyone to get distracted by something else.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:54 am
@tibbleinparadise,
Why? Did you work with the Russians to get him elected?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 08:19 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
Stop being such a sucker for the conservatives and going along with their "But The Real Issue Is Still How Bad Hillary Is" dodge. Trump's got illegal tie-ins for over a decade, they're being uncovered by Mueller, the Congressional committees and the press, and the right is desperate for everyone to get distracted by something else.


Are you nuts? This has nothing to do with the conservatives.

Hillary Clinton just published a book to complain about how the election was stolen from her. In this book she attacks Bernie and she attacks Barack Obama. She is lashing out at everyone.

There is a losing candidate in every election. Most of them don't keep attacking their own party after the election is over. What's wrong with the normal course of action; accepting that you lost and moving on with dignity. If Hillary would just get over herself, most of the rest of us would too.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 08:40 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:


Not saying any conclusive proof has emerged that she lost it because of Russian interference, but discoveries of Russia hacking the voting registration rolls indicate that's a possibility.

Dream on Blickers

Stop being such a sucker for the conservatives and going along with their "But The Real Issue Is Still How Bad Hillary Is" dodge. Trump's got illegal tie-ins for over a decade, they're being uncovered by Mueller, the Congressional committees and the press, and the right is desperate for everyone to get distracted by something else.

I'm certainly not, but even if I were, what difference would it make in this forum? Do you think you need max's psychic energy to push Trump out of office? Do you think that anti-Trump posts here are actually accomplishing something and if derailed, Trump will triumph?

HRC's whining memoirs are in the news (and not just right-wing news) and so they are a fit subject for discussion.

The desire of you and others to control the content here is offensive. It won't work on Lash, it won't work on Max, and it shouldn't work on anyone else.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 09:46 am
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/07/former-hillary-surrogate-shut-go-away/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Her Daddy must have spanked her and called her ugly.

Quote:
Even some of Clinton’s allies have grown weary of her insistence on re-litigating the 2016 campaign at a time when the Democratic Party is looking to forge a new identity in the age of Trump.

“The best thing she could do is disappear,” said one former Clinton fundraiser and surrogate who played an active role at the convention. “She’s doing harm to all of us because of her own selfishness. Honestly, I wish she’d just shut the f— up and go away.” …

“None of this is good for the party,” said one former Obama aide. “It’s the Hillary Show, 100 percent. A lot of us are scratching our heads and wondering what she’s trying to do. It’s certainly not helpful.”


Hey all you HRC lovers, here's a website created just for you!
https://verrit.com/

And here's the reaction from the leftwing press

Quote:
The derision greeting Verrit is so universal it inspires sympathy for Daou, as Gizmodo, the Washington Post, Outline, New Republic, New York, The Ringerand others have broken its back with their snap judgments. “Verrit, a Media Company for Almost Nobody,” read one headline. “No One Asked for Verrit, But Here We Are,” stated another. “What Is Verrit and Why Should I Care? (Unclear; You Shouldn’t.),” said a third. “Peter Daou Continues to Embarrass Hillary Clinton,” asserted the best in show. …

As Daou’s Verrit manifesto puts it, the site hopes to become the trusted sourced for the 65.8 million voters who cast their ballots last November for Clinton and who seek verified “facts” they can use to argue politics. In theory, everybody needs a cheat sheet. In practice, the Verrit method is cringe-worthy. The headline to one early Verrit borrows from the literary methods of Kim Jong Un’s North Korea to assert, “Hillary Democrats Are the Heart and Conscience of America.” Does anybody outside of the Daou re-education camp really think this way?

When it comes to criticism, Daou isn’t a just snowflake. He’s a snow squall, equating most criticism of Clinton (or criticism of Daou) with the desire to erase Clinton and Clintonites. Early this year, he telegraphed his irrational partisanship by tweeting that anybody tweeting “Bernie would have won” in his timeline would earn “an instant block” from his account. “Useless and baseless conjecture. Betrays someone unfocused on the challenge ahead,” Daou continued.

His is a reductionist world where evidence of misogyny and sexism can be deduced from almost any political discussion of Madame Secretary.


Ha!
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 12:13 pm
@maxdancona,
The way Hillary is behaving just further solidifies the belief of many that not voting for her was the right decision. It probably would have been better than who we are now burdened with, but, it would have had a similar series of rants and tirades.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 02:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote Finn:
Quote:
Dream on Blickers

About the Russian hacks making the difference in the election? Every day the news brings more news of the depth of the Russian influence in the election, from hacking the voter registration rolls in Democratic counties to Facebook cooperating with the Russian troll effort, and here Finn still clings to the notion that there is no chance the Russians made any difference in the election.

Quote Finn:
Quote:
The desire of you and others to control the content here is offensive. It won't work on Lash, it won't work on Max, and it shouldn't work on anyone else.

I control the narrative? In the last two months you have posted three times as much as I have, and Lash possibly more. Since your statement essentially means that one post of mine equals several of yours or Lash's, that is very high praise. Thank you.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 04:07 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:


Quote Finn:
Quote:
The desire of you and others to control the content here is offensive. It won't work on Lash, it won't work on Max, and it shouldn't work on anyone else.

I control the narrative? In the last two months you have posted three times as much as I have, and Lash possibly more. Since your statement essentially means that one post of mine equals several of yours or Lash's, that is very high praise. Thank you.


This business of responding to a post the way you want to read it rather than how it actually reads is getting just a tad tiresome.

As much as you and others might like to, you don't control the narrative here.

As for your equation for determining control, posts from left of center members probably outweigh those from the right of center by at least 10-1. If volume was all it took, Lash, Max and I could already be gone.

It's pretty clear though that you and others don't want anyone (especially any one who might in the least be coming from the left) bringing up Clinton. I still can't figure out why it irritates you and others so much. Are you really such a big fan of the woman?

Quite a few of you have been complaining about this preposterous idea that somehow the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) and the Russians have somehow managed to have HRC trot out in public so that they can then deflect attention from "President Plump," "tRump" or any of the other sophomoric names you use for him. What's worse is that there is obviously some notion that anything posted here can either help or hinder their sinister plan.

Maybe you can explain why you would rather scold max and command him to stop bringing up HRC rather than just ignore it.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 10:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
But Finn, if what you claim is my effort to control the narrative is bothering you this much, it must be having some sort of effect on the board. And since my posts appear only a third as often as your own, and probably less than a third of Lash's, you still are paying tribute to the effectiveness of my far less numerous posts than your own. And thus I thank you again for the compliment.

But what does "controlling the narrative" actually mean, anyway? Is it anything like what most of the conservatives did when pushing the issue of Hillary's separate server? For many months, it was almost impossible to engage a conservative on this board on almost any topic at all without them bringing up the alleged depravity of Hillary having a separate Email account. Now that Trump's been caught doing a lot worse than the comparatively diddly squat stuff Hillary did, our outspoken conservatives, such as yourself, have all seemed to have lost or misplaced their attention spans. None of you seem able to stay on one single subject for long if that subject turns out to be Trump's Association with Russian criminals
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 01:02 am
@Blickers,
Pure nonsense, and not in the least as clever an argument as you believe it to be.

If you want to thank me for something that is actually the case in your mind only, I guess I'll politely respond "You're welcome and you're full of it."

You still haven't answered me though as respects to why you find the HRC bashing of Lash and Max to be so infuriating. I'll happily bash her every chance I get and the opportunity has been given to me to do so by at least two threads, that I know of, in which she is the central figure for discussion. However, the two of them seem to be getting much more attention, on this score, from folks like you, maporche and Cyclo, than I am, which leads me to believe you all feel that they are some sort of apostates who are spouting heresy and hurting the cause

I rarely bring her up in other threads, but, again, I will happily join in and criticize her when someone else does, and of course, I won't stop just because someone wants everyone to focus on the evil President Plump. I've no interest in engaging any further in debates concerning the nature and extent of her corruption. The facts speak for themselves but they are, not surprisingly, telling us each different tales. It's pointless to argue in circles.

As for the allegations of Trump colluding with the Russians to fix the election, you're right, my attention span for that subject is rather short, but it's because there is nothing new being said; not because I have any fear of what might be the truth. If he's guilty we'll find out soon enough (and the sooner the better) but if you enjoy rehashing the allegations on a daily basis, knock yourself out, just don't tell or suggest to other people what they can and cannot write here. It's perfectly clear that the left-wingers Lash and max are not welcome in the Clique, but why? They both abhor Trump and that's just about all the political discussion in this forum is about anymore, so what's the problem? Why are they the subjects of ridiculous accusations of working as Russian or GOP operatives? Why are they subjected to pretty nasty insults about their veracity, their integrity and, in Lash's case, even the supposed effect of her hormone levels? The only conclusion I can reach is that neither of them is, at all, fond of Hillary Clinton and that this is intolerable to you folks.

Their joining you in lambasting Trump doesn't seem to garner any credit with you and your friends. I would have expected the attitude to be something like "Well, we disagree about HRC, but we all hate Trump and are united on the most important issue" Obviously though that's not the case and if they are bored by incessant Trump bashing and want to discuss Clinton, you guys are just not going to be happy and won't leave it alone.

I think it's bullshit to argue that Clinton can't be discussed in the main Anti-Trump thread, but can see a shred of validity to base it on, but this thread isn't interfering with your endless repetition about what a monster he is and how anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment is either a monster as well or a stupid dupe. So why the need to come here and slap max's hand?

You say it's not trying to control discussion here, but it sure seems that way to me so maybe you can do a better job of explaining yourself than repeating your goofy argument about the relative number of posts we've all written.

If you don't want to, that's fine too.


tibbleinparadise
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 06:12 am
@Blickers,
Everyone knows that he/she who talks the most or loudest wins. Finn posts a lot AND at great length therefore Finn wins.

If you want to win, you need to beef up your word count per post to at least 600 - 800 words.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 06:23 am
@tibbleinparadise,
Goddammit, Finn. Congratulations, you've apparently won the internet.
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How pathetic can Hillary Clinton get.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 02:19:43