Politics Democrats cringing at Hillary Clinton's long goodbye

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MarAzul said:
Has anyone here read her book?
....
Click to expand...

How about we all chip in and buy you a copy. Then you read it and tell us all about it. Except the very end, don't tell us about that in case they make it into a movie.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
How about we all chip in and buy you a copy. Then you read it and tell us all about it. Except the very end, don't tell us about that in case they make it into a movie.
Click to expand...

Sounds good! The you guys buying. I can always use more fire starter stuff for my wood heater. I may even give a short report.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
C0PA3NyVEAA5UuP.jpg
Click to expand...
2cylif6.png


Should we give a win to the NBA team that wins the most quarters in the game, regardless of the final score?

She lost to both Obama and Trump.

hahahaha (that's about her)
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Nope. Someone always makes it. I watch movies, I know.
Click to expand...

Someone, yes. The hot chick and the strong, yet brilliant and sensitive male lead.

So, none of us make it.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Sorry, but the hardheaded but lovable sidekick dies in the last scene.



What do you think the chances of that are?

barfo
Click to expand...
50/50. Haven't met you. Ok, 50 percent chance you're a girl. Then 20 percent chance you're hot.

100 percent chance if everyone on Earth but me and one woman on Earth die.....the woman will be Crandc and she'll kill me.
 
NY Times review:

You may have heard that “What Happened” is angry. It’s true. Or defiant, anyway. Love it or loathe it, chafe at it or cheer it; you will now see, for the first time, what it looks like when Clinton doesn’t spend all of her energy suppressing her irritation. Former FBI director Comey gets it on the chin; so does the mainstream media, this newspaper very much included. She’s got a special rucksack of descriptors for Trump (“hateful,” “a fraud”), whom she says is pulverizing democratic norms into a paste. “He doesn’t just like Putin,” she writes. “He seems to want to be like Putin, a white authoritarian leader who could put down dissenters, repress minorities, disenfranchise voters, weaken the press, and amass untold billions for himself. He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.”
 
Denny Crane said:
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/heres-what-really-happened-to-hillary-1505431677

Here’s What Really Happened to Hillary
Voters found her unappealing, and they rejected Bernie’s ideology too.

Hillary Clinton is again everywhere, touting her new memoir and adding to the list of who and what are to blame for her loss: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, James Comey, Jill Stein, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Anthony Weiner, sexism, misogyny, the New York Times , lazy women, liberal activists and the “godforsaken Electoral College.” All she’s missing is climate change.

Hillary’s take on “What Happened” has unsurprisingly unleashed another round of analysis about her mistakes—Wisconsin, deplorables, email. These sorts of detailed postmortems of failed campaigns are popular, but they tend to obscure the bigger reasons for failure. In this case: The Democratic Party saddled itself with an ethically compromised and joyless candidate, because it had nobody else.

...

And so the party nominated perhaps the only Democrat in the country who could rival Donald Trump in unpopularity—and beat him in untrustworthiness. Mr. Sanders refused to go after Mrs. Clinton on her ethical baggage, even though it was her biggest weakness and despite how glaringly obvious was the risk that her foundation and server scandals would hobble a general-election campaign. The parties gave the country a choice between two unpopular people, and the country disliked her more. The real question is how Democrats rebuild a party whose senior leaders in the House boast an average age of 72 and which has almost no young, experienced up-and-comers.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
NY Times review:

You may have heard that “What Happened” is angry. It’s true. Or defiant, anyway. Love it or loathe it, chafe at it or cheer it; you will now see, for the first time, what it looks like when Clinton doesn’t spend all of her energy suppressing her irritation. Former FBI director Comey gets it on the chin; so does the mainstream media, this newspaper very much included. She’s got a special rucksack of descriptors for Trump (“hateful,” “a fraud”), whom she says is pulverizing democratic norms into a paste. “He doesn’t just like Putin,” she writes. “He seems to want to be like Putin, a white authoritarian leader who could put down dissenters, repress minorities, disenfranchise voters, weaken the press, and amass untold billions for himself. He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.”
Click to expand...
Takes a fraud to know a fraud.
 
Cringing? Yes, I am. Not after seeing Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow, nothing said there made me cringe. What makes me cringe is seeing this intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous woman, who clearly cares what happens to the country and the world, and then realizing the occupant of the White House is not only a hard right reactionary but profoundly ignorant, stupid, mean, petty, vengeful, vain, vulgar, corrupt man who cares only for his wealth and ego, is bothered more by an ESPN anchor than by hurricanes and nuclear threats. That makes me cringe.
 
crandc said:
Cringing? Yes, I am. Not after seeing Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow, nothing said there made me cringe. What makes me cringe is seeing this intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous woman, who clearly cares what happens to the country and the world, and then realizing the occupant of the White House is not only a hard right reactionary but profoundly ignorant, stupid, mean, petty, vengeful, vain, vulgar, corrupt man who cares only for his wealth and ego, is bothered more by an ESPN anchor than by hurricanes and nuclear threats. That makes me cringe.
Click to expand...
Denny Crane said:
Click to expand...
 
Hillary lost because of one reason:

She did not inspire people. She did not get the people to get out and vote.

Trump beat her with only 2 million more votes than Romney had in 2012. He won because he stole some states that had swung Democrat in 2008 and in 2012. The GOP lost the last two elections because they brought out a couple of boring career politicians that didn't inspire people. McCain and Romney were about as cardboard as you can get, and the Dems obviously didn't learn their lesson because Hillary is basically the same kind of politician. Boring, uninspiring, and just another slice of the same old bullshit.
 
crandc said:
Cringing? Yes, I am. Not after seeing Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow, nothing said there made me cringe. What makes me cringe is seeing this intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous woman, who clearly cares what happens to the country and the world, and then realizing the occupant of the White House is not only a hard right reactionary but profoundly ignorant, stupid, mean, petty, vengeful, vain, vulgar, corrupt man who cares only for his wealth and ego, is bothered more by an ESPN anchor than by hurricanes and nuclear threats. That makes me cringe.
Click to expand...
Dang @crandc, in general I agree with a great deal of what you post but now you're sounding like a left wing Trumpette. That you see Hillary Clinton as you have described her makes you as indecipherable as those folks who think Trump can do no wrong. I'm more open minded than most but your vision of HRC just doesn't match the reality. There are other "as qualified" female candidates that deserve your descriptives but HRC clearly isn't one of them. She's just a mirror image of Trump......that you (and other left learners) can't see that is as incomprehensible as those who can't clearly see who and what Trump is.
 
crandc said:
Cringing? Yes, I am. Not after seeing Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow, nothing said there made me cringe. What makes me cringe is seeing this intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous woman, who clearly cares what happens to the country and the world, and then realizing the occupant of the White House is not only a hard right reactionary but profoundly ignorant, stupid, mean, petty, vengeful, vain, vulgar, corrupt man who cares only for his wealth and ego, is bothered more by an ESPN anchor than by hurricanes and nuclear threats. That makes me cringe.
Click to expand...
Hahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Dang @crandc, in general I agree with a great deal of what you post but now you're sounding like a left wing Trumpette. That you see Hillary Clinton as you have described her makes you as indecipherable as those folks who think Trump can do no wrong. I'm more open minded than most but your vision of HRC just doesn't match the reality. There are other "as qualified" female candidates that deserve your descriptives but HRC clearly isn't one of them. She's just a mirror image of Trump......that you (and other left learners) can't see that is as incomprehensible as those who can't clearly see who and what Trump is.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Dang @crandc, in general I agree with a great deal of what you post but now you're sounding like a left wing Trumpette. That you see Hillary Clinton as you have described her makes you as indecipherable as those folks who think Trump can do no wrong. I'm more open minded than most but your vision of HRC just doesn't match the reality. There are other "as qualified" female candidates that deserve your descriptives but HRC clearly isn't one of them. She's just a mirror image of Trump......that you (and other left learners) can't see that is as incomprehensible as those who can't clearly see who and what Trump is.
Click to expand...

And I don't understand people who say things 'she's just a mirror image of Trump', that's just an absurdly false equivalence. Like saying Burger King is crap, and so is dog crap.

I wouldn't object to saying that she was an awful candidate, or that she's got problems with honesty and/or corruption, or that she's beholden to special interests, etc. etc. Arguments can be made for those things.

But those are 'normal' politician problems. Trump goes way, way beyond that.

barfo
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Dang @crandc, in general I agree with a great deal of what you post but now you're sounding like a left wing Trumpette. That you see Hillary Clinton as you have described her makes you as indecipherable as those folks who think Trump can do no wrong. I'm more open minded than most but your vision of HRC just doesn't match the reality. There are other "as qualified" female candidates that deserve your descriptives but HRC clearly isn't one of them. She's just a mirror image of Trump......that you (and other left learners) can't see that is as incomprehensible as those who can't clearly see who and what Trump is.
Click to expand...
See, later on barfo will say they aren't the same.

I say they aren't because Hillary has spent decades in politics making sure to only lie about certain things and when doing so to be politically correct about it.

That's the main difference in my opinion.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I say they aren't because Hillary has spent decades in politics making sure to only lie about certain things and when doing so to be politically correct about it.
Click to expand...

In other words, she's a politician. If all we are saying is 'a pox on all politicians', then ok. That isn't a terribly useful statement, unless you are planning a different system of government.

That's the main difference in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Ok. So you discount, for instance, knowledge of and interest in world affairs?

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top