|
Post by robeiae on May 4, 2017 15:31:56 GMT -5
So I do think Clinton needs to stop blaming external forces as much as she is doing, and perhaps be a bit more introspective about why she lost. I don't really think she needs to do the last, at all. I know that she is going to--to some degree *wink, wink, nod, nod*--in her upcoming book. But that's just to turn a buck and stay in the public spotlight, I think. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what she thinks, now. It's not like she's going to learn from her (many, many many) mistakes and take another run at it in 2020. It's not like her experiences are really translatable to anyone else. Now she's just Bob Dole without a sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 4, 2017 15:44:12 GMT -5
That's so hateful. I hate your hatefulness.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 4, 2017 15:53:54 GMT -5
Maybe she can do a Pepsi commercial with Justin Bieber...
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 4, 2017 16:47:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 5, 2017 1:39:03 GMT -5
Maybe she can do a Pepsi commercial with Justin Bieber... At least she's not likely to show up in any ED commercials. She's a natural for an off-off-Broadway Shakespearean Kate. I'd pay to watch that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 5, 2017 7:53:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on May 5, 2017 10:15:14 GMT -5
If Hillary's resistance movement has even half as much effect on American politics as the Tea Party did it will be a yuuuuge success. In the interest of being fair and balanced and presenting perspectives differing from my own (and Clinton's), I submit this. Meghan McCain also called Clinton "unpatriotic" for complaining about how the election turned out, which probably means something to someone.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 7, 2017 12:02:49 GMT -5
People seem to have a hard time grasping that an election can be affected by more than one thing. So they want to blame Clinton's loss entirely on X or Y or Z. When in fact, it was probably X and Y and Z. Any one of those things wouldn't have done in her in by themselves. Maybe if one of those things had not been present, she'd have overcome the others, so in that sense, you could say "If Corney hadn't..." or "If the Russians hadn't..." or "If she wasn't a woman..."
But still, it boils down to a very close election where the margins were such that any one factor was enough to make the difference... which means no one factor was to blame.
How she let it get that close is the macro-view that Democrats should be focusing on. Donald fucking Trump should never have been in position for an FBI announcement or some leaked emails or one scandal over a server to give him the Presidency.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on May 8, 2017 12:34:34 GMT -5
So you're saying President Pussygrabber was on the receiving end of more negativity than his opponent? I don't recall Hillary calling Trump "Dumb Donald" though he did call her "Crooked Hillary." I don't recall Hillary leading chants of "Lock Him Up!" at her rallies. I don't recall Hillary insinuating Bernie Sanders' father was involved in the Kennedy assassination the way Trump did about Ted Cruz's dad. I don't recall Trump being subjected to a 10hr interrogation by partisan Democrats in a House hearing. I don't recall James Comey sharing with the press and public that Trump allies were under investigation for their Russian ties. I don't recall Clinton muttering under her breath during the debates, "Such a nasty man" the way Trump did about her. I don't recall anyone giving Clinton a Nazi-style salute. I don't recall Clinton talk about building a stupid wall or calling Mexicans "rapists" or calling any story she disliked "fake news" or demeaning a Gold Star family or acting like a raging, fat fascist douche who likes grabbing women by their vaginas. I don't recall any of that vile shit coming from Hillary Clinton. All of that and more came from Donald Trump, and the fact none of that bothers you says more about Trump and his supporters than it does about Clinton and hers. Hmmm, Clinton gave her fair share. She just prefers the word "deplorable" to "nasty". I don't like that stuff, either, ohio. All I'm saying is that, as Christine alluded to just before your post, Trump received more negativity, and still does, than Clinton ever has from the media and the public. I admit much to most of it he has brought on himself. Yet he still won. So I do think Clinton needs to stop blaming external forces as much as she is doing, and perhaps be a bit more introspective about why she lost. Never use the word "introspective" in any paragraph with the name of "Trump" in it. It's a total non sequitur which completely invalidates the whole point. Trump won the presidency but most people voted for Clinton and he's never stopped running for the office he already holds. You wanna throw shade at Hillary Clinton for "blaming external forces" when external forces with the last name of Comey and Putin made yuuuuge contributions to her loss? Clinton isn't being a sore loser as much as she's determined not to let anyone get how royally she got screwed.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 31, 2017 19:02:32 GMT -5
Clarity on the Nile: She's still blaming Comey and the media, as well. So, Clinton takes responsibility for every decision she made--wow, she's really living on the edge--but nothing she did had anything to do with why she lost. Trump sucks, but OMG, what a pathetic, self-absorbed loser Clinton has become.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 1, 2017 10:17:00 GMT -5
I find this piece from Chris Cillizza--who apparently is now CNN's Chief of Everything; you can't watch CNN for more than 10 minutes without seeing him, every piece he writes is pimped with his name at the beginning--quite interesting. Ostensibly, he's saying the same thing I'm saying, that Clinton is saying that she takes responsibility yet is actually not taking any blame, whatsoever: And so on. Yet, Cillizza ends with this: Saying that (in bold) is not taking full blame and responsibility at all. It's still blame-shifting. This is how to take full blame and responsibility: I lost because I wasn't a good enough or effective enough candidate to win, because I made a lot of mistakes, because my campaign wasn't good enough, because I took too many things for granted.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 1, 2017 16:43:27 GMT -5
I don't agree. Clinton lost for a lot of reasons, not just one. And some of them were beyond her control. You can argue that she shouldn't mention that and should just say it was 100% her fault because she sucked, but I wouldn't expect her to if she doesn't really believe that's true. Frankly, I don't believe that's true either. She did suck, and lots of circumstances beyond her control did hurt her chances. She probably would have won anyway if she'd sucked less; she probably would have won even sucking as much as she did if not for all those other things.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 1, 2017 17:43:09 GMT -5
That's probably true, that it wasn't all her fault, that there were things she couldn't control. To an extent. Obviously--imo--the email issue was 100% her fault. She used a private server because she wanted complete control over info involving her. And the optics related to the Clinton Foundation and to her speaking engagements on Wall Street were completely predictable; she and her campaign responded poorly.
But okay, Comey (though Comey was a positive, before he was a negative; if he never said a thing, who knows). And okay, Russian "influence" (whatever that actually entailed). But blaming the DNC? And the media? That's rather rich. Especially given the post-2008 history of the Clinton machine, where people who supported Obama over Clinton where punished, whenever possible.
Perhaps it would wouldn't be so bad if Clinton actually seemed to allow that she was partly to blame for her loss. But she won't even go there, which strikes me as rather pathetic, given that there are no costs to being honest here, really. Her political career is over, regardless.
Which is the other issue in all of this: she's displaying--imo, to be sure--an appalling lack of dignity by going around whining about how everyone else cost her the election, which of course reveals an underlying assumption on her part: it was her "turn" to be President, goddammit!
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 1, 2017 19:11:19 GMT -5
I heard her the other night saying how Covfefe was trending, and it's a distraction from the latest accusation. And I'm like, are you kidding me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 19:16:01 GMT -5
Covfefe is the only reason I have not yet cast myself into the sea.
|
|