Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
from the #NeverMyFault dept
Hillary Clinton has stepped forward to officially (such as it were...) blame FBI Director James Comey for robbing her of an election win.
“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Clinton told top donors on a farewell conference call Saturday.
“But our analysis is that [FBI Director James B.] Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum,” she said.
Clinton is referring to Comey taking it upon himself to step into the breach and declare to Congress there might be something suspicious about emails he hadn't seen (and his agency hadn't yet acquired a warrant to look at) discovered on former Congress member Anthony Weiner's laptop. Comey's announcement arrived with only a couple of weeks left until the election, prompting nearly everyone to criticize his decision to insert himself into a normally hands-off pre-election period.
Clinton blaming Comey, though, looks more like a candidate looking for anyone else to blame but herself, her staff, and the DNC, which aided her run greatly by agreeing to sandbag her competition.
Comey's belated announcement (and even more belated "never mind") arrived far too late to push undecided voters into Trump's corner. Those who had already decided who they were voting for wouldn't have been swayed either, as it either confirmed their beliefs that Clinton was a crook who would never be punished, or that Clinton was being baselessly persecuted by a politicized FBI.
What data has been gathered from talking to voters about their sentiments pre- and post-election shows barely any correlation, much less causation. Clinton says her campaign's "analysis" points to Comey. But what exactly have they "analyzed?" Marcy Wheeler takes a good look at the information currently available and finds nothing that indicates Comey's announcement played a part in the election results.
What these two pieces — from Trump’s data analyst and Hillary’s pollster — suggest is a correlation between the Comey letter and Trump’s improved chances. But there’s no proof of causation — certainly not that Comey is the primary explanation.
In fact, temporally, the correlation is not perfect. Trump’s analysts say the trend started before the Comey letter. This was a weird election, but it is still highly unlikely that a letter released on October 28 can entirely explain a trend that started before October 28.
Even shifting the focus entirely to swing states does nothing to solidify either party's claims that Comey's announcement swayed the election. Late-deciding voters went for Trump in several key states, but voters also broke in the other direction -- at odds with the narrative the Clinton campaign has decided to push. In Virginia, where beltway security clearance holders might have felt more animosity towards a candidate who skated on a federal investigation involved the mishandling of classified documents, late-deciders opted more often for Clinton than Trump.
None of this really adds up to anything, which would be fine if Clinton's camp wasn't so ready to insist that it does. While it did seem Clinton would have grabbed an insurmountable lead in the wake of Trump's post-"grab 'em by the pussy" debate flame-out, the real issues affecting undecided voters the most weren't Trump's sexism or Clinton's private email server, but far more common worries: the economy, crime, and a distrust for anything considered to be part of the government establishment.
Clinton does list something in her "blame Comey" speech that should have been obvious all along -- something that pretty much undercuts her narrative that the FBI director cost her the election.
“Just as we were back up on the upward trajectory, the second letter from Comey essentially doing what we knew it would — saying there was no there there — was a real motivator for Trump’s voters,” Clinton said.
No matter what Comey said -- nor what was found during the Email Investigation 1.5 -- would have changed the minds of entrenched voters. Those supporting Clinton saw more exoneration. Those supporting Trump saw more evidence of a rigged system. It just didn't matter.
As for the rest of the undecided nation, the original email investigation and its last-minute sequel were too far off in the weeds to be considered worth examining more closely. Writing for Techdirt and conversing with like-minded individuals tends to give the impression that everyone follows these developments closely, but a majority of Americans simply don't care about the wonkish details. If something can be explained simply (Hillary is/is not a crook), then the nuances aren't important. Clinton thought those nuances should have mattered. Trump knew they wouldn't.
Blaming Comey is handy but does nothing to help future candidates better prepare for this fractured American landscape we still call "united." It is, in fact, its own form of denial.
The Democrat focused on the outside events she said affected her campaign in the last three weeks of the election. She said nothing about other, larger forces at work — Trump's message of change in a restive time, his pledge to represent the aggrieved working class, the difficulty of any political party winning a third consecutive presidential term, her own limited attention to economic anxiety, or the sexism and discomfort that surrounded her attempt to become the first female president.
[...]
Neither [Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri] nor Clinton herself addressed how Clinton's decision seven years ago to use a private system for her government communication had opened the door to the FBI inquiry in the midst of her second run for the White House.
While government agencies sounded the alarm about hackers attacking voter data and infrastructure, Trump pushed a rigged election narrative. And for no apparent reason, the FBI felt it just couldn't wait to inform Congress about something it knew next to nothing about, less than two weeks before election day. There were plenty of reasons for voters to feel less than confident about candidates and the process of electing them, but campaigns were won and lost without the FBI's assistance -- no matter how gratifying it might be to pass the buck in the wake of a surprising loss.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, hillary clinton, james comey
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
What a brilliant way to pander to the conspiracy theorists.
So no, Comey is not to blame 100% but he did his bit to support Trumps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
That's cute. But one does not run an email server for convenience. It's anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
There's no doubt that Comey's actions were monumentally stupid. But it's simply one of a myriad small losses that culminated in the large loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It did look like Comey had been 'Got At'
That's where you should have ended that sentence. Of course, HRC and the DNC will blame everyone but themselves - where the blame should squarely lie - thus ensuring the DNC doesn't get fixed and that Trump wins a second term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a wonderful country we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. For example, see President Ford's pardon of Nixon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. IF you believe in the rule of law, she should be in jail... there is NO DOUBT she broke numerous laws IN THE EMAIL case alone; there is NO DOUBT, you, i, ed snowden, or anyone else but power elite cronies could get away with such bullshit as 'didn't have intent', DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER...
(only in a limited aspect, legally for sentencing purposes)
3. klinton klavern foundation is rotten to the core...
4. your 'analysis' of how contemporary his story DID NOT happen is bizarre, and i thought perhaps sarcastic, but it reads earnestly...
obama studiously AVOIDED ANY and ALL investigations of any number of things that he not only retroactively approved of, but furthered Empire and its horror more than most...
you CAN NOT be for the rule of law, and let these illegal activities at the highest level go by, ESPECIALLY if you persecute the RIGHTFUL and RIGHTEOUS whistleblowing actions of others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
She does. For other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does making her pay for her crimes have to do with compromise...would you or I get the same treatment...Her having to face the music like the "little people" that she considers us to be would eat her up even more....
As long as its above board...no underhanded moves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pardon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pardon
The "man" has been waffling about everything he says since he started his candidacy, probably even before that (I only peripherally knew of him as a TV "personality" before all this).
My guess is that if someone calls him out on it, he'll just post a vaguely insulting tweet along the lines of "I've always enjoyed the delicacies northern France has to offer" and call it a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pardon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second off, if Trump sends her to the scaffold, you will certainly see other less free countries use it as an example: "Throw the loser of the election in jail or worse!"
While Trump may not care about domestic political rules, he is going to have to wake up to the international diplomatic reality. The international institutions serve a purpose even if they lack some on the results-side: They facilitate diplomatic relations between distant countries and particularly smaller countries benefit from that. If USA says "every man for himself", I can assure you that several countries will sieze the chance to "clean up" and "defend national interests" by non-diplomatic means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And Comey has been trying to find evidence for 25 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
She is just as deserving of criminal charges as a commoner would be if they had done the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, which is to say, not at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jim wrote:
It's obvious. She was despised by people who spent decades trying -- and failing -- to pin criminal charges on her. The failure to find anything in itself proves just how guilty she is.
At least, I think that's how the logic works. Can't double-check because my brain just shut down in protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do Tell
Because when they said they did not like Hillary, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.
Because when they said they had a different plan, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.
Because when they said they wanted to have rule of law, they were called, wait for it... dirty names.
Just keep it up folks, you are really winning those hearts and minds out there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do Tell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do Tell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.
So WE put a sadistic narc in a candidacy that was mostly about a race to the bottom. And people like this ALWAYS leave a smoking hole in the ground. They are just really good at races to the bottom, because they are more concerned about getting attention, than they are about having integrity.
The HRC candidacy was an inevitable conclusion. It doesn't matter what Trump did. She would have lost to a cartoon character if it would have gotten her more fame. And playing to that flaw, is how Trump beat her.
That says more about the party than it does about the candidate. Which is why anyone who saw this coming, should be looking to build up a third party run for the next election. If the DNC is this divorced from the idea of integrity, then it will never be able to split the rural vote.
And that is really the legacy of HRC. The single handed demolition of the DNC, for nothing more than a tribute to her ego.
Congrats Hillary. You achieved the most spectacular loss in American history. Your name will go down in history. Congrats SCOTUS. You now know how badly you fucked up with Citizens United. v FEC. Congrats Comey. You've put agents all over the country at greater risk.
Now back to your regularly scheduled excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because running a sadistic narc for POTUS had nothing at all to do with it.
One presumes he hasn't given that any more thought than he's given to jailing Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More excuses and backtracking
For me to vote against here it was:
1. Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to invoke the 5th
2. Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to get immunity
3. Bill visiting Lynch on the plane with a bs excuse for it.
4. Always having an excuse and then backtracking when caught.
5. Calling people who would vote against her 'uneducated'.
6. Saying she is going to put coal miners out of jobs.
7. Backstabbing Sanders and Sanders supporters
8. Being fed questions (shows she cant think on her feet).
9. Getting a 1/2 dozen positive articles about her on yahoo news and 1/2 dozen negative articles about Trump.
10. Obvious Pay to Play with her foundation
11. Email server.
Hillary is as nasty as they come. Hillary and the DNC are to blame for her loss, not Comey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
Hillary's private email server use was standard practice for Republican White House officials, Secretaries of State, governors, etc. Charge her, and you'd have to prosecute most of Washington. Shenanigans in the primaries and the rest - no one bats an eye when Republicans do it.
Trump - between his Trump University scam, charity scams, tax dodging and much, much more - is AT LEAST as corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
Okie-dokie!
Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. (Are you going to argue that AOL is more secure than a private server?) In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.
Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.
And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
And while it's not exactly the same, 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.
And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.
This is yet another case of IOKIYAR: It's OK If You're A Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
The guy responded intelligently to what can only be seen as a challenge (not actually a question) and you come back spewing drivel. Congratulations!!!!!! You are the poster boy for posting-while-drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
The poster said "NONE of them ran a private server in their home"
None of that bullshit Roger posted challenged that remark. It just gave him a window to toss out the usual Leftist apologist "point at everyone else" bullshit.
So, answer the fucking question. Did any of them, aside from the a fore mentioned Jeb taking his server home with him when he left office, run a private email server from their home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, her situation was unique. She had the server under her complete control including the physical machine as the physical machine was located at her house.
The AC asked if any one else had the server located at their house. I responded that I thought Jeb took his home when he left office, but I don't think he "ran" it out of his house.
Instead of simply answering the question or challenging the statement with an actual example, Roger tossed out every idiot on the Right that ever did something stupid with their email. At the end of his Trump like word salad, he still didn't provide the proof/example that the AC asked for, and when challenged, he doubled down with more dumb ass.
Unless someone can provide proof to the contrary, I submit that the AC was correct in his statement.
Can we just all agree that out of all the examples that Roger gave, only Hillary ran the server out of her house? That fact alone, in and of itself, however irrelevant, makes her specific situation unique?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
That "every idiot on the right" is "damn near all of them." The entire last Republican administration. The last two Republican SecStates. Pretty much everyone connected to the 2016 Republican primaries who could have an email scandal, did have an email scandal.
Deny all you want, but it's firmly established that you're criticizing Hillary for what is standard Republican practice.
Nonsense. You could also claim that she was the only one using a Dell server or the only server using an ergonomic keyboard.... and it would still be irrelevant. The others used non-government servers. Some (like the Bush White House) off-site, some in (like Jeb!) their own offices away from government IT staff, and some (like Colin Powel) used AOL. It makes no difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
Original statement/question/challenge.
"NONE of them ran a private server in their home...if you have proof otherwise please link to it...!"
Answer: You are correct. NONE of them ran a private email server in their home.
It's that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More excuses and backtracking
Wonder what happens when we feed the list of evils for the two candidates into the vote2016() function?
clinton = { evil => [ 'Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to invoke the 5th', 'Needing 1/2 dozen of her co-workers to get immunity', 'Bill visiting Lynch on the plane with a bs excuse for it.', 'Always having an excuse and then backtracking when caught.', 'Calling people who would vote against her uneducated.', 'Saying she is going to put coal miners out of jobs.', 'Backstabbing Sanders and Sanders supporters', 'Being fed questions (shows she cant think on her feet).', 'Getting a 1/2 dozen positive articles about her on yahoo news and 1/2 dozen negative articles about Trump.', 'Obvious Pay to Play with her foundation', 'Email server' ], 'sex' => 'female', 'party' => 'democrat' }
trump = { evil => [ 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe' ], 'sex' => 'male', 'party' => 'republican' }
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More excuses and backtracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What really lost Clinton the vote was the general apathy of her voters. Too many of her would be supporters did not come out to vote. Whatever their personal reason be, that is what truly lost it for her.
If she wants to blame anyone, it should be the failure of her team to get people to the polls.
Now we are stuck with a racist voted in by millions of racists*.
*You may not think of yourself as racist, but by voting for one who unapologetically and proudly supports racism, you thus then condone and support racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The left constantly disparages their own voters to enact policy change.
School education? Our voters are too stupid, change it!
Voting policy? Our voters are too stupid to acquire valid ID, change it!
Affirmative Action? Our voters are too incompetent to compete with whitey we have to make sure that a bare minimum is hired qualified or not!
All because telling someone that no matter what, they still have a minimum amount of effort to expend to do something is somehow racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It also makes life tougher for the poor whites who are now legally discriminated against based on the color of their skin. Being told that you are racist and have had a privileged life is funny when you have to be dramatically more qualified just to get hired.
Maybe you are in fact, less qualified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your a racist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's "You're a racist!"
Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe English is not my first language?
Better not let any of your fellow Trump supporters hear that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
School education? Our voters are too stupid, change it!
When you consider the push to include creationism in curriculum, despite no evidence to support it, you might be too stupid.
Voting policy? Our voters are too stupid to acquire valid ID, change it!
When you think acquiring ID is a matter of intelligence, rather than a function of location, cost, or availability, you might be too stupid.
Affirmative Action? Our voters are too incompetent to compete with whitey we have to make sure that a bare minimum is hired qualified or not!
When you consider that there are plenty of people ready to discriminate against serving the LBGT community as part of their daily business operations because of their "beliefs" but somehow think that color of skin could never come into play, you might be too stupid.
Sometimes the truth hurts. And white society as a whole isn't nearly as benevolent as they would like to think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After being beaten to death with tolerance this, racist that, identify as this or that, ole whitey had enough and voted themselves in a giant fuck you into office. Good luck with that one.
Yeah, that tolerance stuff is just too much.
If you can't hate blacks, latinos, and those who don't follow the christian faith, then what's the point of living?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm...while I think of "why we're losing" consider maybe "why YOU'RE winning."
You ran McCain in 2008, and he actually had a chance until you paired him up with Palin, who embodied the phrase "simple-minded idiot." You lost.
You then ran Romney in 2012, and paired him up with the guy who's got a hard on for privatizing social security. Again, you lost.
This time, you put up the biggest latino-deporting, muslim-banning, BLM-hating person you could find, along with a religious nutjob for good measure and win. But you're telling me that racism, sexism, etc. has nothing to do with it.
Seems like the reason we lost is refusing to cater to the scum that you're enthusiastic about working with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now come to the table with real solutions and ready to reach across the isle or continue the name calling and continue the losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now come to the table with real solutions and ready to reach across the isle or continue the name calling and continue the losing.
We will. Just like you did with Obama in 2008.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whitey as a whole doesn't hate, they just don't care. Be what color you want, fuck who you want, and identify however you want, they don't care and their tired of hearing it. Keep that shit to yourself, out of the workplace, out of the schools, and out of their hair.
One of the reasons Democrats lost is not because of true racism ( I agree it does exist, and may have had an impact however small) but because instead of holding a meaningful argument about character, they throw out that word as a means to demonize and ostracize whitey. It's used to obfuscate the real issues when someone disagrees with Democrats point of views. It's like a poker game where your opponents get all wild cards, all the time.
Here's the bad news. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The left collectively stood up and called the entire middle class of America a sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist. The big white couch potato didn't like that.
Now you got Trump. Whitey dropped a collective fuck you on the table, left the game, and plopped right back down on their couch. Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be what color you want, fuck who you want, and identify however you want, they don't care and their tired of hearing it. Keep that shit to yourself, out of the workplace, out of the schools, and out of their hair.
For a race that couldn't care less, much less get off the couch to care, they sure want a lot of laws that discriminate based on just that, though don't they?
Gays want to marry? Nope, can't do that. God'll get pissed off.
Gays want to use a bathroom? Hang on a sec - we'll tell you which one to use.
Want to discriminate against gays because your imaginary man gets butthurt over it? Sure - go ahead! If god tells you it's OK, it must be.
Want to say that this is a polytheistic nation? The fuck we are! This is a christian nation!
Want to teach evolution? Not without giving equal time to our god story.
So while you like to think you're open minded, and that the vast majority of you don't care, your actions clearly say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In 2016 42% of Black / Hispanic people supported gay marriage, 57% of whites supported gay marriage.
So more more of the white people support gay marriage than Blacks OR Hispanics.
Who's the homophobic here hater?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Opposition to same-sex marriage still retains a majority of support in the following: Conservatives,[9] people who agree with the Tea Party movement,[9] people with religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality,[9] people who attend religious services at least weekly,[9] Protestants,[9] members of the Republican Party,[9] the Silent Generation,[9] people living in the South Central United States (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, and TX combined).[9] and the states of Alabama,[10] Arkansas,[10] Mississippi,[10] South Dakota,[10] and Tennessee.[10]
If you look at all of those groups, tell me - which of those do you not identify with?
And while you're looking, which of those groups just helped elect Trump, and maintained Republican control of Congress?
So it's either you're voting against your values or you're full of shit.
Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"For a race that couldn't care less, much less get off the couch to care, they sure want a lot of laws that discriminate based on just that, though don't they?"
I said the average whitey doesn't care what you do. I supported it with facts showing that what I said was true. Now you want to turn the argument into a religious one.
You want to point at the religious right? Have at it, some of them are haters too. My argument was that it had nothing to do with race or racism. Looks like that argument is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My argument was that it had nothing to do with race or racism. Looks like that argument is over.
Given your candidate just appointed this little gem, I'd say it's far from over.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/trumps-appointment-bannon-receives-wave-criticism.html
T ell me - how's the air there in the bubble? Or am I just misunderstanding why he'd appoint this shitbag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was pointing out that Homophobia is not a "racial" issue, that most white people are not racists, that whitey doesn't really give a fuck how you "identify", and that the Democrats use racism to deflect from the real issues.
You brought in that whitey hates the gays, and makes the laws to stop the gays from marrying. I pointed out that minorities are less tolerant than the white people are regarding the acceptance of gay marriage. It's a fact, and it's all I was trying to say.
Give it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care who Trump puts in power. I don't care what politician does what.
Who's he catering to? Blacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, no.
I said the average whitey doesn't care what you do.
Yet they certainly have an opinion, either for or against. If they didn't have an opinion, wouldn't they fall into the third "Don't Care" column?
I supported it with facts showing that what I said was true.
However, out of those groups:
4% of whites don't care
8% of black, non-hispanic don't care
5-6% of hispanic don't care
So it would seem that a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics truly don't care.
Your numbers certainly don't lie - you said it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you don't like it when the numbers don't say what you want do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here .. say it with me..... Minorities-are-more-homophobic-than-whitey! Shit man, lets keep this going. How about Islamophobia? or Antisemitism? Pastafarianism? I wonder if we broke the whole phobia thing down by a percentage of population by race what it would look like. Anyone got any graph paper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep using this word and it makes you sound rather silly. It's also pejorative and a little bit obnoxious. It does nothing for any argument you make as I don't read past it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When a guy sits down at your kitchen table and says, flatly, "Wish [he] wasn't born black", He is correct.
Can't stand HRC? http://www.green.republican/
Can't stand DJT? http://www.green.democrat/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your original statement:
Whitey as a whole doesn't hate, they just don't care.
Yet, in the link you provided:
4% of whites don't care, 8% of black, non-hispanic don't care, 5-6% of hispanic don't care
(You weren't kidding about English being your second language, were you?)
Whenever I bring up something Trump actually says, I typically get "what he means is..."
Seems like you really meant, they care - but you said they don't care.
Just admit it and move on. Your quote is right there for everyone to read - you said - (and clearly, multiple times) "don't care."
If you meant something else, you should've (wait for it) said something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish commenters on forums wouldn't use sweeping generalities because lumping a large group of people together under one name just shows how weak the argument is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. You've done nothing but generalize and your take on politics is nothing short of hysterical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump is alt-right. Not better, but different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd just like for once to see a complaint from Republicans that isn't about Obama or Hillary doing something that's standard practice for Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will tell you something that the Repubs are doing that the Dems aren't: winning!
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A fine example! Ask Ron Paul about rigged primaries.
Or John McCain. Republican candidates in 2000 were given what was essentially a loyalty oath stipulating that they would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries exclusively, and not McCain, and if they didn't agree, the Party would withhold its financing.
And of course Republicans were openly trying to rig the primaries against Trump as panic set in. But it was too late.
Another good example! Republicans did the same, until they agreed on a talking point. It was certainly a reasonable conclusion, given that there were other protests at the time, known to be linked to the video.
Hillary, on the day of the attack, merely noted that the video might have sparked it, as intelligence officials were telling her. She chose to wait for more information to come in before drawing any conclusion.
At the time of the attack, Benghazi had the five member security team that was requested. More were requested, but not until the day of the attack.
But even with your dishonesty, it's still an excellent example! Compare all the Benghazis just during the previous administration:
Jan 2002 - Calcutta, India - 5 dead when Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack US consulate.
2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W. Bush.
Jun 2002 - A truck bomb detonates outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve dead, 51 injured.
2002 - Two Marines shot, one killed in Kuwait.
Feb 2003 - Karachi, Pakistan - Two dead, five wounded by gunmen on motorcycles in front of the US consulate. The attack was deliberately aimed at those guarding the consulate.
May 2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.
Oct 2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza.
Mar 2004 - Karachi, Pakistan - Another attempt to blow up a van in front of the consulate. Found and deactivated by police.
Jun 2004 - Tashkent, Uzbekistan - Two dead as Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks US Embassy.
Dec 2004 - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Nine dead as al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound.
2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr, civilian working in Saudi Arabia, kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.
Mar 2006 - Karachi, Pakistan - a suicide car bomb killed American diplomat David Foy, and three Pakistanis and injured thirty outside the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate. It appears that Foy was the direct target of the bomber, who detonated his vehicle in the car park behind the consulate as Foy arrived.
Sep 2006 - Damascus, Syria - Four dead as gunmen raid US Embassy.
Jan 2007 - Athens, Greece - RPG Fired at US Embassy
Mar 2008 - Sana'a, Yemen - Mortar attack against US Embassy
Jul 2008 - Istanbul, Turkey - Six dead in Armed attack against Consulate
Sep 2008 - Sana'a, Yemen - 16 dead in two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital
2008 - John Granville, US diplomat, assassinated in Khartoum, Sudan
Notice that that includes at least three consulates/embassies overrun just like Benghazi. And that's just during one administration.
ALL of these incidents could be exploited in the same partisan manner that Republicans do with Benghazi. ALL can lead to the same false accusations. But the other side simply didn't sink to the same depths as Republicans.
That, and an unwillingness to court the racists, misogynists, homophobes and conspiracy theorists, is why Dems lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
Here is how the liberals are working out the left's racism which runs to the very foundation of their party. A racist rapist founded the party. After their loss in the civil war to the first republican president and great emancipator, they spent the next 100 years turning their fire hoses and German Shepherds on the blacks. Seems your lies are catching up to you so you might as well find a new tactic.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/14/president-university-founded-by-jefferson-asked-to-not-q uote-jefferson.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just lost the argument right there. And as for playing the "left=racist" card... pathetic. I can shoot your bilious biased shite down in two words. Strom Thurmond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to Trump, both Houses, the 2 to 3 SCOTUS appointments. I would argue he won, and won big. The Democrats have lost 910 seats since Obama took office.
If the Right gets all that for "losing the argument right there", good luck when they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bookmark this post and call me out for it if I'm wrong in 2018.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have no idea why the Dems lost and have been losing for 8 years. Until you do, the Dems will keep losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Voting for someone means either that of the available candidates you think they are overall the best choice for your county/state/nation when their pros and cons are weighed against the pros and cons of their opposing candidates, or that of the available candidates they hold policy positions most favorable to you.
So just like there are people who favored the death penalty who voted for Tim Kaine in spite of his personal pro-life beliefs, it's guaranteed that there are plenty of people who voted for Trump in spite of his racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward (but seriously we know who you are) wrote:
You really picked a perfect example there. Just perfect.
Your racist ran on the explicit promise of racist policies. His newly appointed "chief strategist and counselor" is an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist. So your vote means you don't give a shit about the targets of those policies. Which makes you, at best, an enabler. A collaborator.
To continue your analogy: You voted for the murderer whose campaign was founded on explicit promises to murder more people. You don't get a pass on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People can be disgusted all they like. If people voted for Trump, either they're racist, or they excuse racism. It's not like he kept his racism hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess the thing that amazes me the most about this election is the left point out the sins of Trump while totally ignoring the sins of Hillary. If you think you are a saint and everyone else is a sinner, you are fooling yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because it's explicity mocking the racism and ignorance of Trump, who thought that a photo of himself eating a "taco bowl" (WTF even is that) was a great Cinco de Mayo message.
Didn't happen, unless you're talking about, say, Republican voter suppression in North Carolina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess the thing that amazes me the most about this election is the left point out the sins of Trump while totally ignoring the sins of Hillary.
No ones ignoring them.
We're simply pointing out that as a whole, Trump is a far bigger douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until we stop demonising Trump voters we're not going to understand why people voted for him. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.
My personal understanding is that they wanted to upend a system they believed was rigged against them. They understood the right thing in the wrong way; the rigging is not a partisan one and it's not done in a partisan way. In fact, partisanship is just a ploy to divide and conquer and unfortunately they fell for it. It'll flippin' hurt when Trump breaks all the promises he's walking back on right now. Who will they blame then? The Republicans own both houses. When I didn't get it I complained about bias. Now that I do I'll join the other smart people in saying that the only choice Americans have is between Kang and Kodos. There's no meaningful left as such and while Progressives can be noisy they've not got as far as they want to, depending on which state you're in.
The failures are with neoliberalism and Progressives and their liberal agenda is just a distraction. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the scary-looking smoky guy is talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who knew that this entire election was about nothing else but racism? Guess things like the economy, gender issues, security, gun control, crime, and politics as usual had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And if you truly believe what you said, than you're just as narrow-minded and single issue focused as those you decided to call racists. If you can't see past the single issue that you decided to post about, then you're part of the reason that people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No you won't. It is funny how bad you don't get why the dems lost. (Trigger warning) they just wouldn't listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you won't. It is funny how bad you don't get why the dems lost. (Trigger warning) they just wouldn't listen.
Are you arguing that we must listen to the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic element of this country?
It sounds like you are.
And that makes you a pathetic piece of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you even aware of how nonsensical your grouping of bigotry is? Example: You use racist and homophobic in the same sentence. Although I'm sure you can be both homophobic and racist, minorities are less tolerant of Homosexual's and Homosexual marriage than the white man. When you say "anti-semitic", do you mean from Muslims? I ask because there isn't even a predominantly white country in the top 10 Jew hating countries out there. How about "misogynistic"? Ever heard of Sharia law? This country has its problems, but I would be careful with just throwing out phrases like that. The vast majority of Americans are none of those things, and calling half of them names may get your Leftest leadership tossed out of office on their ass... o wait....
http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-10-most-anti-semitic-countries/
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/c hanging-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie- roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be careful with just throwing out phrases like that.
I'm just telling it like it is.
Don't like it? Tough shit.
That's the attitude of the incoming administration. Get used to the rest of us doing the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People wanted change, and when that change kicks in they'll find it's not the change they voted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He wasn't my candidate of choice, but the other side was way worse...
So by your definition, if you voted for HRC then you are are lying back stabbing crook with absolutely no integrity, and no morals other than what is politically convenient at the time...
Sound about right..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Following your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisan Autopilots
I expect many will crank the aggressiveness up to the point where driverless cars fight over parking spots. I'm looking forward to the YouTube videos.
Soon, more customization will be a selling feature: Driverless cars are all connected to cloud computing. The possibilities for instant automated lookups on the vehicles around you is endless. If this election is any indication, a decade from now you'll be able to tell your car to be cooperate with driver/owners sharing your political affiliation, and to be downright bastards to those who don't.
It'll give us a definitive answer to the Trolley Problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which straw broke the camel's back?
That said, Clinton was an incredibly weak candidate. But so too was Trump. Turnout was way down this year from prior elections, and given that Clinton won the popular vote, it's fair to say that the country remains right on the knife edge of 50-50.
There are many things you could argue in retrospect might have changed the outcome, and this election had so many absurd twists that the challenge is choosing which one weird and unprecedented event might be most important.
I think it's very plausible to say that if Comey hadn't sent his letter then Clinton might have won. It's all speculation of course, and we don't get to run the experiment again to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which straw broke the camel's back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which straw broke the camel's back?
So, whatever other problems the Clinton campaign had (many), it's the FBI's letters letter that ultimately lost her the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love that the Dems are still in denial as to why they lost
But the name calling and labeling is a losing tactic now. People are finally starting to look at the real issues. Check the link below, the Dems have lost big time since Obama took office and will quite likely keep losing until they realize and admit why they are losing. I will give you a hint, crying wolf isn't working anymore.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who was most despised?
Secondly, people deeply resented the corporate media's efforts to ram her down their throats.
Finally, Hillary represented the establishment in an anti-establishment year. She promised more of the same (and sometimes said so explicitly). A lot of people were willing to roll the dice.
It is unfortunate that the dice came up craps and they'll lose everything under Trump/Pence, but at the time, it probably seemed like the best bet for a lot of folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who was most despised?
Let's continue to keep an open mind and see what he does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who was most despised?
Does that help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who was most despised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who was most despised?
They have the potential to dig a hole that will be very hard to climb out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love that the Dems are still in denial as to why they lost
They vote according to personality/likability, but are not smart enough to understand how that will backfire.
Hillary had no personality (none that she could communicate, at least) and was even more unlikable than Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, the traditional democratic northern states are suffering economically, has a large population willing to go with anything but status quo and has a lower proportion of the less Trump-leaning demographics.
While some republicans found Trump repulsive, noone liked Clinton. Also, NRA... I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
I read WSJ, WaPo, NYT, Slate, Vox, Breitbart, Drudge, RCP, Politico, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, the Hill, and Townhall for political news. There are plenty of sites out there that cover politics. Very few sites cover technology, the surveillance state, etc. like Tech Dirt does. (IMHO, YMMV)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why?
Is what I call it.
Lots of Tech blogs are running political commentary right now.
It'll pass. Until TheTrumpet starts doing stupid shit. [Grabs popcorn.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She will never get that it was her
"And that is really the legacy of HRC. The single handed demolition of the DNC, for nothing more than a tribute to her ego."
It was not all her, the DNC shares equally in this loss, it was all about payback for 2008 when she was told she would have to wait a little longer for her anointment. She had one shot at the presidency and in hindsight it was 2008. Since then she dug her grave and the DNC was just the mechanism that lowered the body. Hillary will never accept any blame for this, but the DNC will have to live with the memory that Bernie would most likely have beat Trump.
The other reason she can't take blame IMHO is that she has to tell her donors something and it can't be 'it was my fault', they might want their money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She will never get that it was her
"Well... Donald Trump won." Is the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming Comey is handy
It would appear that HRC is concerned about pending criminal litigation, and is trying to use the trinities respective post mortems, to proxy threats at Comey. ("If WE go down YOU go down!", etc. etc.)
Comey needs to be relieved of duty. It doesn't matter at this point what he did or when he did it. What matters, is that his continuation in his position will taint any following criminal prosecutions against the Clintons.
If you look at the Forum posts during her concession speech it is clear. Any mandate that Trump has, is within his own constituency, intertwined with this prosecution going forward. If it doesn't Trump will be seeing a much more serious problem in the 2000 elections.
It was a campaign pledge. And his people have memories likes elephants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This a race of putting up the two most hated people you can find and having people pick based on who they hate more. How come? Who cares why Hilary lost, I'd like to know why she was on the ballot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the democratic party had the bad judgement to nominate her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical criminal response...
Yes, Hillarity, you did indeed break, not bend, but break the law.
You committed acts of treason.
Not that I'm saying Donna Strumpet is any better.
Eventually, people are going to wise up and figure out there's more than 2 parties in our system, or better yet, abolish all parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really need an edit button
reason that people voted for Trump. It was a rebellion against being told what to think and being called names for not thinking as told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really need an edit button
A temper tantrum, then, worthy of a 2-year-old. Congratulations Toddler Nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really need an edit button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really need an edit button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really need an edit button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I voted for HRC, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
Perhaps I'd be better off with the one that says
"I'm with stupid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes and No
For all the criticism of Hillary and her email server, for all the other emails leaked and swirling around in the news - I have seen nothing to indicate that her server was hacked. If it were, don't you think 33,000 or 65,000 or 650,000 emails (seriously? Who has that many?) would be all over WikiLeaks months ago.
Maybe DNC should hire Hillary's tech support staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you are correct that she needs to blame herself first. It's all cause and effect. Her misuse of emails was the cause, Comey's actions were (part of) the effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Clintons would just disappear into the history books (along with the Bush dynasty), then that would be the best for this country. I really don't look forward to all the nastiness that will come if a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate EmailGate, PedoGate, HaitiGate, Pay2PlayGate, the Clinton Foundation filings, etc, etc. ad infinium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the one answer
This is OK in some few cases, but politics is definitely not one of those. Politics is a complex world where lots of things factor in.
It's so much easier to go around, grab the first thing that comes to mind (and that isn't yourself, preferably) than checking for the complex social interactions that brought the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternate Headline
Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the point where the Comey letter comes into play is with voters who might have voted for Clinton, but either 1. didn't vote, or 2. voted for a 3rd party / write in candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they ever find Hillary's missing emails,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why she lost
Why does she scare so many men? Why were women so quick to not vote for her?
And why did anyone listen to Comey in the first place when he didn't even have a warrant to look at those extra emails?
Because she was female, and everyone knows that females are the weaker of the two sexes. They have no business running this country.
However, a xenophobic, sexist, racist, 1% male with absolutely no previous job experience in elected office is perfectly ok for President.
That was easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ingratitude
Of course perhaps she's right. Her treatment (contrast with that of a decorated Marine who sent one e-mail containing classified intelligence through an insecure channel in an ultimately vain attempt to save the lives of fellow Marines in Afghanistan) reinforced the impression that Washington elites have placed themselves above the law, and may have spurred some otherwise lukewarm voters to pull the lever for the business/entertainment elitist rather than the political elitist on November 8th.
Full disclosure: I'm a #NeverTrump Republican who didn't vote for either of the wannabe Caesars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sexist racist
The Native Americans also getting their heads bashed in and shot at with rubber bullets. Children protesters bleeding from attacks by police dogs. This is racist. This is the Democrat administration doing Nothing to help the indigenous people and instead beating, stripping, caging and arresting people for exercising their first amendment right to peacefully assemble and freely associate. Why would a thinking person think that electing another Democrat would improve the situation for minorities?
2. women. Well. Clinton's first move out of the gate was to enlist a couple of hard core macho feminists to tell us that if we didn't vote for Clinton we were going to hell. Have any of you fan boys ever met a woman? Ever talk to her like that? Go over well did it? There is much more, but basically, she cares about herself, not women.
3. the screeching vitriol of the online hate brigade employed by the Clinton campaign and her super packs did a great deal to spread the sentiment to Bernie supporters and independents that their vote was neither desired nor required by her majesty Mrs Clinton.
It is unfortunate but not surprising that the DNC continues in the vein of head sand burying by repeating the same mistakes. They are clearly not interested in reforming their party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sexist racist
Now repeat after me: non-Republican =/= Leftist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Older white women (since they are in menopause, losing reproductive rights didn't matter to them)
-Latinos: They want those annoying relatives who moved into the garage a year ago deported
-Blacks: Trump presidency = more innocent black males shot by police which is a great way to promote #blacklivesmatter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]