Hillary Lost Because Of

[antiquity]

That's what I really don't understand. Look at the big Democratic liberal cities all over the country. They are a mess. Slums, violence, homeless, income inequality, many of them running deficits, you name it. If liberalism worked so well then these liberal controlled cities should be bastions of Utopia. But, they aren't. And yet the voters still keep on filling in the D circle in the voting booth, mostly because they are afraid that Republicans will take all that away from them. Like Trump said to these blue cities, "What have you got to lose"?

I think being afraid of losing their welfare befits has something to do with it.

 

[antiquity]

what scares me is that hillary is thinking about running again in 2020
what worries me more is that the democratic hierarchy might support such a(nother) boondoggle

Hillary would be 74 and Bernie would be 80....not much chance of either running again. Just to be fair... Don Trump would be 74 in 2020.

 

[antiquity]

1 So, you really don't think the evangelicals would institute a theocracy if they were really 80% of the population?

No and as I said the Constitution wouldn't allow it anyway.

2. What does that have to do with separation of church and state?

Ist Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.......

Anyway, Democrats haven't attempted to institute a socialistic economy such as they have in Venezuela. The furthest left Democrats favor something more like what they have in Scandinavia, which is very different

Of course they have....take over of auto industry, ACA, distribution of wealth, limit of free speech, wanted free college on and on. I guess you didn't listen to Bernie Sanders who is a socialist.

 

[antiquity]

The GOP hasn't figured out that the same thing, the extremist religious right, is what costs them elections, that's why the majority of idiots in their latest primary clown car were trying to out-God each other, instead of debating the actual issues anyone cares about. Both parties have been moving to the extremes for years, there are no worthwhile moderate parties in this country.

Actually Independents have increased while both parties have decreased.

 

[Surrealistik]

Of course they have....take over of auto industry, ACA, distribution of wealth, limit of free speech, wanted free college on and on. I guess you didn't listen to Bernie Sanders who is a socialist.

If you actually listened to Bernie Sanders you'd that the so-called 'extreme left' of the Dem party does in fact advocate policy infinitely more in line with a mixed economy, social democracy per virtually every Scandinavian country than a de facto command economy dictatorship like Venezuela.

 

[Moderate Right]

Interesting that after 112 votes now only 3 voted for Russian hacking, and yet it was such a big deal back about one month ago.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1 No and as I said the Constitution wouldn't allow it anyway.



2 Ist Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.......



3 Of course they have....take over of auto industry, ACA, distribution of wealth, limit of free speech, wanted free college on and on. I guess you didn't listen to Bernie Sanders who is a socialist.

1 The Constitution doesn't stop religious fanatics when there are enough of them. Of course, this is an hypothetical anyway since the nation is not 80% fundamentalist Christian. (Thank God for that!)
2. The establishment of religion has nothing to do with liberal big government ideology.
3. The auto bail out and subsequent partial government ownership of GM, the closest we've ever come to a real socialist ideal, was not the Democrats' doing. The Democrats haven't tried to limit free speech. Government paid college tuition is not a take over of any industry. Socialism doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

 

[Cephus]

Actually Independents have increased while both parties have decreased.

Not to any level where an independent candidate has any chance in hell of actually winning.

 

[Moderate Right]

I think being afraid of losing their welfare befits has something to do with it.

Which kind of proves that instead of their overall lives being made better they would rather live in slums hearing gunfire every night and going to funerals, just in order to keep on receiving welfare benefits. They have become so used to their way of life that Democrats have thrust on them that they don't understand that life actually can be better.

 

[eohrnberger]

But neither party has any interest in hearing that what they're doing is wrong. The Republicans send out surveys to their membership after every election loss, asking what they did wrong. I assume the Democrats do the same thing. But no matter what gets said, they just double down on the same things that cost them the election and are really surprised when they lose again and again. Now we're seeing the Democrats doing the same thing. They're pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. They will never admit that Hillary was just a bad candidate. They will never admit that their platform sucks. It's got to be something else. It can never be their fault.

Well of course not. Elites never figure they are the problem. The root cause of the problem.
Must be some sort of mental barrier, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias or something that mentally blocks the idea that the allegedly smartest guys in the room really end up being the dumbest.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Which kind of proves that instead of their overall lives being made better they would rather live in slums hearing gunfire every night and going to funerals, just in order to keep on receiving welfare benefits. They have become so used to their way of life that Democrats have thrust on them that they don't understand that life actually can be better.

And your plan for encouraging "them" (not sure just who "they" refers to) to get out of that slum is, what again? Have them vote for Republicans? What?

 

[Moderate Right]

And your plan for encouraging "them" (not sure just who "they" refers to) to get out of that slum is, what again? Have them vote for Republicans? What?

And your plan is to redistibute a few dollars from the rich to the poor, knowing they will spend it all and leave them pretty much where they started out at, still on the government dole. My plan would be different than both the Democrats and the Republicans but it would be a mix of hope and tough love and anyone not willing to get in line for the program would be shoved aside and remain poor.

 

[antiquity]

Not to any level where an independent candidate has any chance in hell of actually winning.

What and who were independent candidates? All presidential candidates had some party to run under.

 

[antiquity]

And your plan for encouraging "them" (not sure just who "they" refers to) to get out of that slum is, what again? Have them vote for Republicans? What?

Government hand outs only encourages people to stay trapped in the slums. The more babies they have the more money they can get.....Most were trapped by LBJ 'Great Society' into generational welfare.

 

[Moderate Right]

Government hand outs only encourages people to stay trapped in the slums. The more babies they have the more money they can get.....Most were trapped by LBJ 'Great Society' into generational welfare.

But that is just a Republican myth.

 

[antiquity]

But that is just a Republican myth.

Yea right? Wait... isn't that a double positive and would it make it a negative.

 

[Cephus]

What and who were independent candidates? All presidential candidates had some party to run under.

Anyone on the actual ballots was because you have to get enough support to be worthy of getting printed. There are people who were running independently, but nobody ever heard of any of them, hence what I said about none of them having any chance of getting elected.

 

[Perotista]

Anyone on the actual ballots was because you have to get enough support to be worthy of getting printed. There are people who were running independently, but nobody ever heard of any of them, hence what I said about none of them having any chance of getting elected.

You're right about none of the third party or independent candidates having a chance of getting elected. But they don't have the money or the organization to get known. But they do serve a purpose, at least for me this year. I wanted a say in the down ballot offices without having to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I detested both. A third party candidate let me vote against both Trump and Clinton while voting for whom I really wanted in all the down ticket offices.

I didn't give a hoot whether or not my third party candidate had a chance to win. I knew he didn't. But I could register my vote against the two major parties candidate and that brought satisfaction to me. In fact close to 8 million other voters did the same thing I did. Perhaps holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils when it comes to choosing between the two major party's candidates, the least worst candidate or the least hated one could be coming to an end.

Then again I may be dreaming. But an increase from 1.5 million who voted third party in 2008 and another 1.5 in 2012 to 8 million in 2016 does give me hope. Then again, it may be just the candidates each party chose and the third party vote will drop back to the more normal 1.5 million in 2020. Time will tell.

 

[trouble13]

You're right about none of the third party or independent candidates having a chance of getting elected. But they don't have the money or the organization to get known. But they do serve a purpose, at least for me this year. I wanted a say in the down ballot offices without having to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I detested both. A third party candidate let me vote against both Trump and Clinton while voting for whom I really wanted in all the down ticket offices.

I didn't give a hoot whether or not my third party candidate had a chance to win. I knew he didn't. But I could register my vote against the two major parties candidate and that brought satisfaction to me. In fact close to 8 million other voters did the same thing I did. Perhaps holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils when it comes to choosing between the two major party's candidates, the least worst candidate or the least hated one could be coming to an end.

Then again I may be dreaming. But an increase from 1.5 million who voted third party in 2008 and another 1.5 in 2012 to 8 million in 2016 does give me hope. Then again, it may be just the candidates each party chose and the third party vote will drop back to the more normal 1.5 million in 2020. Time will tell.

Now i did for trump but i adementally argued against those that claimed 3rd party votes are throw aways. Before i became convinced by trump i was going to vote 3rd party. I think its more important to vote for something than it is to vote against something. If i had not liked any of tje 3rd party candidates which i did not i was going to write in george washington. I bwlieve 3rd party and write in votes send a message to the major partys of the type of person they need to run to earn your vote. Both partys are foolish if they ignore what 8 million voters voted for. If they are tone deaf they do not deserve our votes. You doing what you did amounts to acting as a political compass to point the party into a desired direction. I dont want to overstate it but i think it takes a certain amount of courage to vote 3rd party. Your playing the long gamenwhile the rest of the dissatisfied voters are playing short term and then getting mad that the party never offers them good candidates.

Btw i think the dems best shot at winning was nartim omalley. I lived in baltimore when he was the mayor. He is a very liberal guy but he us also very likeable. I would not of voted for him because i believe after the last 28 years of left leaning and moderate right presidentsbwe needed to move toward the right in policy but i would not of been upset if he had won, just disappointed. The party should really consider running him against trump in 2020.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Perotista]

Now i did for trump but i adementally argued against those that claimed 3rd party votes are throw aways. Before i became convinced by trump i was going to vote 3rd party. I think its more important to vote for something than it is to vote against something. If i had not liked any of tje 3rd party candidates which i did not i was going to write in george washington. I bwlieve 3rd party and write in votes send a message to the major partys of the type of person they need to run to earn your vote. Both partys are foolish if they ignore what 8 million voters voted for. If they are tone deaf they do not deserve our votes. You doing what you did amounts to acting as a political compass to point the party into a desired direction. I dont want to overstate it but i think it takes a certain amount of courage to vote 3rd party. Your playing the long gamenwhile the rest of the dissatisfied voters are playing short term and then getting mad that the party never offers them good candidates.

Btw i think the dems best shot at winning was nartim omalley. I lived in baltimore when he was the mayor. He is a very liberal guy but he us also very likeable. I would not of voted for him because i believe after the last 28 years of left leaning and moderate right presidentsbwe needed to move toward the right in policy but i would not of been upset if he had won, just disappointed. The party should really consider running him against trump in 2020.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

My first choice was Jim Webb, then came John Kasich. O'Malley would have gotten my vote against Trump. Heck, Sanders, Biden, whomever probably would. But not Hillary Clinton. Sanders is completely opposite when it comes to political views, but I always respected him. I think he has the good of the country in his heart, had he ran and won, I would have felt comfortable. I would have expressed my displeasure at a lot of his policies, but I still would have felt this country was in good hands regardless of political views.

I couldn't say that for Hillary Clinton or for Donald Trump. I felt neither had the good of the country in either's heart. I feel with Trump as president, this country is in a world of hurt. But I would have felt the same if Hillary had won. In their case as far as I was concerned, there were no lesser of two evils. Apparently, 8 million other Americans felt the same.

I think one can have policy differences, different political philosophies, ideology etc. Looking back over past presidential races, I always had a favorite, but I always felt comfortable with both candidates. Obama-Romney, Obama-McCain, Bush-Kerry, Bush-Gore. I was very leery of Bill Clinton back in 1992, but he put my apprehensions to rest and by 1996, I was as comfortable with him as I would have been with Bob Dole or Ross Perot. I go back to Eisenhower, rather my candidate won or lost, I never considered it a matter of life and death. Or a matter of if so and so won, the United States was going to suffer big time. I had that the U.S. was going to suffer big time feeling with both Trump and Clinton. Hence my vote for Johnson. I could do my best, my utmost to try to get both defeated and voting for Johnson was the only way I could come up with.

It is my opinion people need to stop holding their nose and voting for the least worst candidate. The least worst candidate will still be a bad winner or a bad president. Why settle for bad? Is bad good enough to be president if in one's view the choice is between bad and very bad? I voted for good even though I knew good wasn't going to win. I let others make their choice between bad and more bad if they could figure out which one was which. 8 million Americans couldn't.

 

[trouble13]

My first choice was Jim Webb, then came John Kasich. O'Malley would have gotten my vote against Trump. Heck, Sanders, Biden, whomever probably would. But not Hillary Clinton. Sanders is completely opposite when it comes to political views, but I always respected him. I think he has the good of the country in his heart, had he ran and won, I would have felt comfortable. I would have expressed my displeasure at a lot of his policies, but I still would have felt this country was in good hands regardless of political views.

I couldn't say that for Hillary Clinton or for Donald Trump. I felt neither had the good of the country in either's heart. I feel with Trump as president, this country is in a world of hurt. But I would have felt the same if Hillary had won. In their case as far as I was concerned, there were no lesser of two evils. Apparently, 8 million other Americans felt the same.

I think one can have policy differences, different political philosophies, ideology etc. Looking back over past presidential races, I always had a favorite, but I always felt comfortable with both candidates. Obama-Romney, Obama-McCain, Bush-Kerry, Bush-Gore. I was very leery of Bill Clinton back in 1992, but he put my apprehensions to rest and by 1996, I was as comfortable with him as I would have been with Bob Dole or Ross Perot. I go back to Eisenhower, rather my candidate won or lost, I never considered it a matter of life and death. Or a matter of if so and so won, the United States was going to suffer big time. I had that the U.S. was going to suffer big time feeling with both Trump and Clinton. Hence my vote for Johnson. I could do my best, my utmost to try to get both defeated and voting for Johnson was the only way I could come up with.

It is my opinion people need to stop holding their nose and voting for the least worst candidate. The least worst candidate will still be a bad winner or a bad president. Why settle for bad? Is bad good enough to be president if in one's view the choice is between bad and very bad? I voted for good even though I knew good wasn't going to win. I let others make their choice between bad and more bad if they could figure out which one was which. 8 million Americans couldn't.

I dont agree with your opinion of trump or clinton but i respect that you did not like either and voted for neither. I respect all of the 8 million who voted for neither.

Im a little younger than you. My earliest memory of any president is ford but i really did not comphrehend who he was. I was a toddler. My first election that i was eligable was bush sr but i sat it out. I was politically immature then but i knew i did not like either bush or mondale. Mondale seemed out of touch and growing up in the regean years i was pretty anyi consetvatism from it. The moral majority stuff did not sit well with me. I could not vote bush becsuse he represented an extension of that.

I voted perotte the next election. He was kind of nuts but i liked him. Next election i went 3rd party mostly because of the impeachment and general slimy typical clinton scandal stuff. Dole seemed out of touch. I voted bush jr twice and then i went for obama and then gary johnson. This election i went trump. I dont always make the correct choices but im proud to say ive always voted for who i believed was best. I sort of have ross to thank for that. He kinda opened my eyes to understanding we have more than two choices at election time.

I know you dont like trump but i will tell you im pretty pleased with him so far. Its still very early but im impressed with his aggressive approach and he appears dedicated to keeping his pledges. I think trumps ego is going to drive him to be the best president he can be. His naracism is going to benefit us all.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Perotista]

I dont agree with your opinion of trump or clinton but i respect that you did not like either and voted for neither. I respect all of the 8 million who voted for neither.

Im a little younger than you. My earliest memory of any president is ford but i really did not comphrehend who he was. I was a toddler. My first election that i was eligable was bush sr but i sat it out. I was politically immature then but i knew i did not like either bush or mondale. Mondale seemed out of touch and growing up in the regean years i was pretty anyi consetvatism from it. The moral majority stuff did not sit well with me. I could not vote bush becsuse he represented an extension of that.

I voted perotte the next election. He was kind of nuts but i liked him. Next election i went 3rd party mostly because of the impeachment and general slimy typical clinton scandal stuff. Dole seemed out of touch. I voted bush jr twice and then i went for obama and then gary johnson. This election i went trump. I dont always make the correct choices but im proud to say ive always voted for who i believed was best. I sort of have ross to thank for that. He kinda opened my eyes to understanding we have more than two choices at election time.

I know you dont like trump but i will tell you im pretty pleased with him so far. Its still very early but im impressed with his aggressive approach and he appears dedicated to keeping his pledges. I think trumps ego is going to drive him to be the best president he can be. His naracism is going to benefit us all.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's very true that I don't care for Trump. But I haven't condemn him yet as others has. In fact there has been a couple of times I defended him. When it comes to the two major parties nominees, Ross once told me to stuff cotton or put in some ear plugs to drown out all the rhetoric. Then just sit and watch how each party governs. One won't see much difference.

Oh, they change things around the edges, but the governance is pretty much the same. One reason is both parties owe the same people, the corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, one doesn't bite the hand that feeds you.

I too voted for Perot twice and for Johnson in 2012. In 2012 I had lost faith in Obama and didn't trust Romney. Although I still felt this country was in good hands either way. I just don't have that feeling this time around. But like I said, I didn't have a warm and comfy feeling for Bill Clinton either back in 1992. Sometimes one gets surprised.

 

[justabubba]

It's very true that I don't care for Trump. But I haven't condemn him yet as others has. In fact there has been a couple of times I defended him. When it comes to the two major parties nominees, Ross once told me to stuff cotton or put in some ear plugs to drown out all the rhetoric. Then just sit and watch how each party governs. One won't see much difference.

Oh, they change things around the edges, but the governance is pretty much the same. One reason is both parties owe the same people, the corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, one doesn't bite the hand that feeds you.

I too voted for Perot twice and for Johnson in 2012. In 2012 I had lost faith in Obama and didn't trust Romney. Although I still felt this country was in good hands either way. I just don't have that feeling this time around. But like I said, I didn't have a warm and comfy feeling for Bill Clinton either back in 1992. Sometimes one gets surprised.

repeal of glass-steagall
launched NAFTA
imposed minimum sentencing/mass incarceration doubled priso population
eliminated AFDC to the poor
deregulated derivatives
re-appointed greenspan
implemented don't ask don't tell
increased prison building by $19 Billion while reducing public housing spending by $17 Billion

by his actions, bill was a republican

but clinton was a lucky sonofabitch; what saved him was the economy. an economy that began having widespread access to the world wide web about the time he entered office. the internet 'exploded' during his administration. something he had absolutely nothing to do with

and yes, he was charismatic ... an essential quality for one who would undertake republican policies and pretend to be a liberal democrat

 

[Dittohead not!]

Government hand outs only encourages people to stay trapped in the slums. The more babies they have the more money they can get.....Most were trapped by LBJ 'Great Society' into generational welfare.

Agreed. Now, the solution to this problem again is?

I was in Montana once visiting my sister who lives there. The governor was bragging about how the cost of welfare had gone down. I asked her how he did that.

Answer, "He gives them enough money for a ticket to California."

Now, there's a solution. Send them to another state. Send them all to California, where they will cause the state welfare sysem to collapse, and the right wingers can point fingers and say it was a failure due to "liberalism."

Problem is, there aren't enough jobs for people without specific training, and the welfare recipients don't have that.

 

[Van Basten]

Typical liberal lie...never said anything like that...geesh.



When you have nothing... just call the opposition a racist or an uncle Tom....and every thing will fall in place.

Eh, for you information those poor white folks and some poor black folk, to boot, is what carried Trump to the presidency, both getting tired of being left behind by fake promises by democrats.

Liberal lie? You seemed to be implying it with your odd comment. Don't get mad at me, learn how to communicate your point better. Whatever point that was.

Poor white people have been voting against their interests for a long time. Their sect is so paralyzed by racial or religious (sometimes both) indoctrination that they cast their vote in the dumbest ways possible. Like voting Trump, for example.

The masses voted for Hillary, let it go.