Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[stormy]

Maybe Hillary should stage a takeover of Goldman Sachs.

[LisainCali]

On 11/26/2016 at 9:08 AM, Chicken Wing said:

It's the sum of the number of senators plus the number of representatives in the House. Every state has two senators, but the number of representatives is proportionate to its population. Small states like Wyoming and the Dakotas have just one representative each, so three electoral votes. California has 53 representatives, so 55 electoral votes. The number of representatives nationwide is fixed into law at 435, so each state can't just add or delete its number of reps without apportioning the difference in another state -- the total still has equal 435. Adding the 100 senators (2 x 50 states) plus 3 electors for D.C. equals 538.

Thank you.  Excellent explanation.  I live in California, so don't really care how the electoral college winds up anymore.  But when I lived in Arizona, I was afraid that the electoral college would be tossed out.  There would be no point in me voting at all.  

Because what it comes down to, really, is that with the popular vote, all Presidential elections would mostly be decided by the east and west coast states.  

Edited December 1, 2016 by LisainCali
Typo

[ruby24]

15 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

Thank you.  Excellent explanation.  I live in California, so don't really care how the electoral college winds up anymore.  But when I lived in Arizona, I was afraid that the electoral college would be tossed out.  There would be no point in me voting at all.  

Because what it comes down to, really, is that with the popular vote, all Presidential elections would mostly be decided by the east and west coast states.  

George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. There is no reason to think it's impossible for Republicans to win the popular vote. I think more people would turn out, because yes, every state would count.

[slf]

4 hours ago, LisainCali said:

Because what it comes down to, really, is that with the popular vote, all Presidential elections would mostly be decided by the east and west coast states.  

Well, no. It would be decided by the majority of voters. Which is fair and democratic. The electoral college is neither and of course wasn't designed to be. Which is how we ended up with a PEOTUS the majority of voters rejected.

[ruby24]

I believe that if Comey had never interfered Hillary would have hung onto MI, WI and PA. I think that last news cycle was what tipped the election. Her popular vote lead is large enough and her loss in those states combined (80,000 votes!) was close enough that this did it.

It re-energized Trump voters and Hillary haters when there was just enough time left to make a difference. Every bad news cycle focused on the candidates damaged their poll numbers the entire year.

She may have lost FL and OH anyway, and the story would have probably been the surprise of the election being even as close as it was, and what could it mean that she only won with 278 electoral votes, etc., but I 100% believe that that man's interference in this election handed us Trump. A president elected with a minority of the vote by a historic split margin.

Edited December 2, 2016 by ruby24

[Chicken Wing]

10 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I believe that if Comey had never interfered Hillary would have hung onto MI, WI and PA. I think that last news cycle was what tipped the election. Her popular vote lead is large enough and her loss in those states combined (80,000 votes!) was close enough that this did it.

It re-energized Trump voters and Hillary haters when there was just enough time left to make a difference. Every bad news cycle focused on the candidates damaged their poll numbers the entire year.

She may have lost FL and OH anyway, and the story would have probably been the surprise of the election being even as close as it was, and what could it mean that she only won with 278 electoral votes, etc., but I 100% believe that that man's interference in this election handed us Trump. A president elected with a minority of the vote by a historic split margin.

We can't discount the fact that Hillary didn't run the best campaign and didn't reach out to the Trump-leaning folks in those areas the way she should have (and the way Bill warned the campaign they needed to), but I agree that the Comey letters didn't help. Her losing margins in those three states were so small that it's possible that that interference could have been the deciding factor in a lot of those voters. Polls showed that, what, 10-12% of voters overall made up their minds in the last week before the election, and the vast majority of those folks broke for Trump. The Comey letters could very well have been the tipping point in their last-minute decision. Like Hillary said herself (though it sounds less convincing coming from her, bitter grapes and all that), the first letter brought the email scandal back to the forefront and reinforced her "untrustworthy" label in people's minds, and the second letter unexpectedly exonerating her right before the election succeeded in reinforcing the notion that the system is rigged in her favor -- taken together, the two ideas made her less attractive to those voters who were honestly torn about who to vote for. And the big issue is that it happened so close to Election Day. As much fun as it was to watch Trump get his October surprise in the way of the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent assault allegations, and seeing his poll numbers drop, a part of me was a little uneasy about the assumption that the wind was now at Clinton's back -- because it was still fairly early in the month and there were still weeks left for people to get through it, get over it and move on. And apparently they did. They had enough time to process their emotions about him to let the initial sting fade by the time Election Day loomed ever closer and they decided they needed to rally around their candidate after all, and so Trump's poll numbers went back up toward the end of the month. Clinton's surprise happened too late. There wasn't enough time left before Election Day for people to hear the news, get all the information, understand why this doesn't and shouldn't change anything, and move on. She went into November 8 with a cloud hanging over her.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Chicken Wing
half my damn post disappeared

[ari333]

• Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  20 hours ago, slf said:

  Well, no. It would be decided by the majority of voters. Which is fair and democratic. The electoral college is neither and of course wasn't designed to be. Which is how we ended up with a PEOTUS the majority of voters rejected.

   

   

   

  THIS ^^^^ yes!

Sorry about the quote boxes

[Duke Silver]

I'm kind of beating a dead horse at this point, but I'll keep saying it:  the argument about "economic anxiety" was & is BULLSHIT.  I stumbled across this tweet that formed the basis of a Post article:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/804748257738063872

In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy

Quote

Trump didn't win because people were worried about the economy. He won thanks to people who were worried about the subjects of immigration and terrorism that he started hammering on from the very first day of his campaign.

[slf]

My problem with the "flawed candidate" criticism of HRC is that Donald Trump won.

[bilgistic]

It's interesting to me that every time in history (definitively four, arguably five--going back to Andrew Jackson) that the electoral college has determined the president-elect despite the other candidate winning the popular vote, the president-elect has been Republican. I'm not sure what that says about the process, but it definitely says something.

[Padma]

21 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

I'm kind of beating a dead horse at this point, but I'll keep saying it:  the argument about "economic anxiety" was & is BULLSHIT.  I stumbled across this tweet that formed the basis of a Post article:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/804748257738063872

In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy

It's a great point, easily lost sight of in all the media talking points to the contrary.

I hope you keep making it!

[NewDigs]

15 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Sorry, but I couldn't get past this:

'What too many of these uneducated and unshowered drum circlers don’t know, or don’t care to know, is the popular vote is a meaningless unit of measure. '

in that Townhall link.

 

Did you edit http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/12/04/the-unpopular-truth-about-the-popular-vote-n2254534 out of your post? 

That's the link I referred to in my above, and now merged, post.

Moved from wrong thread.

[Padma]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 4:49 AM, Chicken Wing said:

We can't discount the fact that Hillary didn't run the best campaign and didn't reach out to the Trump-leaning folks in those areas the way she should have (and the way Bill warned the campaign they needed to), but I agree that the Comey letters didn't help. Her losing margins in those three states were so small that it's possible that that interference could have been the deciding factor in a lot of those voters. Polls showed that, what, 10-12% of voters overall made up their minds in the last week before the election, and the vast majority of those folks broke for Trump. The Comey letters could very well have been the tipping point in their last-minute decision. Like Hillary said herself (though it sounds less convincing coming from her, bitter grapes and all that), the first letter brought the email scandal back to the forefront and reinforced her "untrustworthy" label in people's minds, and the second letter unexpectedly exonerating her right before the election succeeded in reinforcing the notion that the system is rigged in her favor -- taken together, the two ideas made her less attractive to those voters who were honestly torn about who to vote for. And the big issue is that it happened so close to Election Day. As much fun as it was to watch Trump get his October surprise in the way of the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent assault allegations, and seeing his poll numbers drop, a part of me was a little uneasy about the assumption that the wind was now at Clinton's back -- because it was still fairly early in the month and there were still weeks left for people to get through it, get over it and move on. And apparently they did. They had enough time to process their emotions about him to let the initial sting fade by the time Election Day loomed ever closer and they decided they needed to rally around their candidate after all, and so Trump's poll numbers went back up toward the end of the month. Clinton's surprise happened too late. There wasn't enough time left before Election Day for people to hear the news, get all the information, understand why this doesn't and shouldn't change anything, and move on. She went into November 8 with a cloud hanging over her.

Worst of all re: the Comey letter, it allowed Trump to hit her HARD on emails --aka in his lies, "her corrupt use of an email server to hide her crimes!  She should be in jail for her "pay to play" schemes that enriched her at YOUR expense!" etc. etc. Every speech, every day--and they were played in full on CNN (at least) and "highlights" of the above attacks played everywhere.  (And no, Giuliani, you liar.  No, Tubby WASN'T "ignoring the email completely the last week and focusing on Obamacare."  Truly, these people have NO integrity.)

Comey gave Trump the opening to resume an even harder attack on her for "corruption".  He also said, many times, that "the FBI wouldn't have reopened the investigation unless they had evidence of a crime. If she's elected, she will probably be facing prosecution and impeachment." (then, of course, "Lock her up!" the crowds would chant). So vile. So ugly. So FALSE.  But Comey gave him the OPENING to repeat, on television, all of that for 11 days--and put up social media posts to the same effect.

What undecided voter, hearing that at the last minute, would feel confident to trust her?  Who could refute it when everything Comey'd written was so vague and full of innuendo?  That was his big gift to Trump.

[LisainCali]

On 12/1/2016 at 2:55 PM, ruby24 said:

George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. There is no reason to think it's impossible for Republicans to win the popular vote. I think more people would turn out, because yes, every state would count.

It's not only possible for Republicans to "ever win the popular vote", it's been done 50% of the time.  Every state does count in the electoral college, and NOT in the popular vote. In the popular vote, the "sophisticated" cities are weighted heavily.  All the ocean states are weighted heavily.  East and West Coast.  So my vote might mean a lot more than yours, if you don't live in an urban, coastal area.  Be careful what you wish for.  Google electoral map 2016.  You will see a sad reality.

I do respect your opinion.  And, your right to vote.  Please make sure your friends vote as well.  I am somewhat active in my community to get people to vote.  If you aren't, well.....hopefully, you had something better to do.  I have voted by mail for years.  Because I didn't have time/energy to stand in line after a long day at work.  

Hillary Clinton received over 9 times the amount of money for her campaign than Trump did.  If George Clooney had given the proceeds from his Parties for Hillary, to the homeless in LA instead, how much good would his event have been?  

LA is crazy-expensive. The streets are a mess.....yadda, yadda, yadda.  

[shok]

4 hours ago, LisainCali said:

It's not only possible for Republicans to "ever win the popular vote", it's been done 50% of the time.  Every state does count in the electoral college, and NOT in the popular vote. In the popular vote, the "sophisticated" cities are weighted heavily.  All the ocean states are weighted heavily.  East and West Coast.  So my vote might mean a lot more than yours, if you don't live in an urban, coastal area.  Be careful what you wish for.  Google electoral map 2016.  You will see a sad reality.

 

By what logical rationale should a 7-11 clerk's vote in Ames, Iowa count more than a 7-11 clerk's in Utica, NY? The ocean states aren't 'weighted' heavily, there are simply far more people living there and their concerns should matter just as much and their vote should count the same.

If someone lives in a red state like, say, Oklahoma, how would the people of Tulsa like it if someone told them their vote was only going to count half as much as the farmer living 50 miles away in a sparsely populated county? Same red Republican vote, but they don't count because there's more of them in Tulsa so we've got to equalize the farmer's vote somehow.

Those voters in the 'sophisticated' cities are working and paying taxes and joining the military to defend the people in the red states too. In fact, those sophisticated city dwellers on the east and west coasts are paying for and supporting the red-staters. Every single red state is a "taker", receiving more in benefits and services than they pay into the federal coffers while the populous states like NY and Calif are paying far more than they get back. But Idaho and Kansas think their vote should count more?????

[slf]

16 hours ago, shok said:

Those voters in the 'sophisticated' cities are working and paying taxes and joining the military to defend the people in the red states too. In fact, those sophisticated city dwellers on the east and west coasts are paying for and supporting the red-staters. Every single red state is a "taker", receiving more in benefits and services than they pay into the federal coffers while the populous states like NY and Calif are paying far more than they get back. But Idaho and Kansas think their vote should count more?????

And this for me, and others, is a major sticking point and I say this as a red-stater. If I were living in Cali or NY I'd be pissed; it's little wonder there is so much resentment toward red states. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by slf

[windsprints]

Quote

If George Clooney had given the proceeds from his Parties for Hillary, to the homeless in LA instead, how much good would his event have been?

If the Trumps would move to the White House NYC wouldn't be paying 1 million PER DAY for security.  Imagine how many children could have their lives improved with that 1 million per day instead of wasting all that money so one kid doesn't have to switch schools. 

Quote

Those voters in the 'sophisticated' cities are working and paying taxes and joining the military to defend the people in the red states too. In fact, those sophisticated city dwellers on the east and west coasts are paying for and supporting the red-staters. Every single red state is a "taker", receiving more in benefits and services than they pay into the federal coffers while the populous states like NY and Calif are paying far more than they get back. But Idaho and Kansas think their vote should count more?????

I think people forget how large NY is. There are plenty of towns and counties in NY that are nothing at all like living in NYC. The "NY Coastal Elite" does not apply for so many in NY.  Every citizen's vote should be equal.

Edited December 5, 2016 by windsprints

[Padma]

21 hours ago, LisainCali said:

Hillary Clinton received over 9 times the amount of money for her campaign than Trump did.  If George Clooney had given the proceeds from his Parties for Hillary, to the homeless in LA instead, how much good would his event have been?  

I don't understand the idea that the coasts are "weighted" in the popular vote. Larger populations will cast larger numbers of votes. Apart from that, all popular votes are equal.

As for the quote above, can you source it that Clinton got 9x more (inc. super Pacs?) May be true, though it doesn't factor in all his free media that no one else got.

As for Clooney, I don't understand.  Why pick on him?  If all the rich people in America (including Tubby) donated some of their money to the homeless, their condition would be better.

Clooney was trying to help Hillary get elected to make a difference for millions of people (billions, if you count the effect of Trump v. Hillary on the rest of the world.)  Money well spent, if it had worked.

What's Tubby ever done for the homeless? Or anyone, for that matter, where it didn't benefit him most of all.

[slf]

23 minutes ago, Padma said:

What's Tubby ever done for the homeless? Or anyone, for that matter, where it didn't benefit him most of all.

Seriously. Trump could've spent on the homeless, vets, children, etc., what he spent and raised to get elected. And more: after all, he is a "billionaire".

[bilgistic]

I got my "Nasty Woman" t-shirt today! Can't wait to wear it! Thanks to the poster here who let me know about it (the one Samantha Bee wore). I love getting a great shirt while supporting a deserving cause--Planned Parenthood!

[LisainCali]

22 hours ago, Padma said:

I don't understand the idea that the coasts are "weighted" in the popular vote. Larger populations will cast larger numbers of votes. Apart from that, all popular votes are equal.

As for the quote above, can you source it that Clinton got 9x more (inc. super Pacs?) May be true, though it doesn't factor in all his free media that no one else got.

As for Clooney, I don't understand.  Why pick on him?  If all the rich people in America (including Tubby) donated some of their money to the homeless, their condition would be better.

Clooney was trying to help Hillary get elected to make a difference for millions of people (billions, if you count the effect of Trump v. Hillary on the rest of the world.)  Money well spent, if it had worked.

What's Tubby ever done for the homeless? Or anyone, for that matter, where it didn't benefit him most of all.

Living in LA for most of my life, I can attest that celebrities are often, not always, but often, the most generous and giving people on the planet.  

That said, I am far from a Trump fan.  I would have voted for almost anyone other than Trump, except Hillary.  

Joe Biden ?, Kasic, NOT Ted Cruz.  I'm an Independent.

I do respect the minimal amount Trump spent on his campaign compared to the nearly $1 BILLION that Hillary received.  Trump ran a very austere campaign especially considering the Republican Party even cut off his funds.  His TV appearances were only because he was invited to come on these shows, and he did.  Every other network invited every other candidate, every day. Trump is the only one who said, "Yes."  Because he got his message out for free.  The others refused to go on the news shows.  

[LisainCali]

I am totally on board for Michelle Obama in 2020!  

[formerlyfreedom]

This is not the Michelle Obama topic.

Also - RESPECT your fellow posters. If you cannot do that, you may be warned/suspended/banned. Read the entire post before you respond, and be sure you understand what is being said. Again - if you cannot show your fellow posters respect, you may be warned/suspended/banned. You do not have to agree. You DO have to get along.

[stormy]

I don't care how long it takes, five years, ten, whatever, I want to know how this happened to us.

Hillary was up 13 points before Comey dropped his bomb he didn't have to drop, and all the pollsters, including mainstream NYT, etc giving Hillary as much as a 90% chance of winning.  Hillary was running against an crazed ego manic, the FBI, Putin, Russian hackers and WikiLeaks, but she still got (as of now at least) 2.7 million more votes that the "winner."

I'm never going to except the results.

[ari333]

5 minutes ago, stormy said:

I don't care how long it takes, five years, ten, whatever, I want to know how this happened to us.

Hillary was up 13 points before Comey dropped his bomb he didn't have to drop, and all the pollsters, including mainstream NYT, etc giving Hillary as much as a 90% chance of winning.  Hillary was running against an crazed ego manic, the FBI, Putin, Russian hackers and WikiLeaks, but she still got (as of now at least) 2.7 million more votes that the "winner."

I'm never going to except the results.

THIS  ^^^^^^^^

[bilgistic]

In lighter liberal news...ROY COOPER DEFEATED PAT MCCRORY FOR NC GOVERNOR!!! The hot chocolate is on me, and bilgisticat will be serving catnip!!

[film noire]

On 12/5/2016 at 3:22 AM, shok said:

In fact, those sophisticated city dwellers on the east and west coasts are paying for and supporting the red-staters. Every single red state is a "taker", receiving more in benefits and services than they pay into the federal coffers while the populous states like NY and Calif are paying far more than they get back. But Idaho and Kansas think their vote should count more?????

All us godless, gay-loving, feminazi-supporting, choice-demanding, latte-drinking dirty commie liberals are married to  red america state-beaters  -- they call us names, mock our ideals,  live off our hard work, go through our purses and then beat the shit out of us, while whining about how hard THEY have it -- anybody got the number handy for Trump's divorce attorney? 

Edited December 8, 2016 by film noire

[Blergh]

Dare I say it? While  I fully believe  that Mr. Trump's boorish behavior to women he wasn't married to deserves being called out, for Senator Clinton to act as though she was going to be the Avenging Angel on behalf of all the women Mr. Trump had wronged while not so much as addressing the facts that she never so much as acknowledged much less called out her own husband's ungentlemanly behavior to other women(or made any offers to help THEM) despite it being VERY  public record seemed a bit hypocritical to me(and yes indeed I DID vote for her because I thought and still think she'd be a better President than Mr. Trump).  Could other registered voters in vital states/districts have ALSO decided that this was hypocritical and NOT been willing to hold their noses as I was willing to do and either voted for Mr. Trump, voted for third parties or not voted at all? 

[film noire]

59 minutes ago, Blergh said:

  Could other registered voters in vital states/districts have ALSO decided that this was hypocritical and NOT been willing to hold their noses as I was willing to do and either voted for Mr. Trump, voted for third parties or not voted at all? 

If Trump had been the target of a left wing special prosecutor who spent two years (and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars) investigating Trump's illegal  (not merely boorish) behavior,  then maybe there'd be a comparison between the two cases. As is, Bill Clinton was investigated and had to face the political and legal implications of his behavior (none of which were HRC's to atone for as a candidate. She is not her husband).  Trump never faced a single penalty for his years of sexual misconduct. But if sexual issues truly were what those voters were looking at, they helped elect someone accused of raping a thirteen year old girl (with a court date in December) so hypocrisy doesn't even begin to cover the moral failure of those voters.

Edited December 8, 2016 by film noire

[slf]

5 hours ago, Blergh said:

Dare I say it? While  I fully believe  that Mr. Trump's boorish behavior to women he wasn't married to deserves being called out, for Senator Clinton to act as though she was going to be the Avenging Angel on behalf of all the women Mr. Trump had wronged while not so much as addressing the facts that she never so much as acknowledged much less called out her own husband's ungentlemanly behavior to other women(or made any offers to help THEM) despite it being VERY  public record seemed a bit hypocritical to me(and yes indeed I DID vote for her because I thought and still think she'd be a better President than Mr. Trump).  Could other registered voters in vital states/districts have ALSO decided that this was hypocritical and NOT been willing to hold their noses as I was willing to do and either voted for Mr. Trump, voted for third parties or not voted at all? 

For me this is complicated because it touches on a lot of unpleasant truths about our misogynistic society. The fact that a lot of men have sexually harassed and/or assaulted women and many, if not most, of them have wives. The fact that people have repeatedly used this against HRC, most often blaming her for the affairs in the first place, because as a woman it's her responsibility.

Like, I don't blame Melania or Marla or Ivana for Trump's actions. I'm not even comfortable calling them out if they say "oh, he's a great guy" because I appreciate how complicated that situation must be for them. They are/were married to the man, have children with him, and I can't acknowledge how abusive he's been toward other women without considering how abusive he might've been toward them (Ivana made accusations against him). Like when it comes to things Trump's said about Ivanka- is it fair to hold her accountable for that? Imagine being raised by that man; him sitting you on his lap, talking about how he'd date you if he wasn't happily married, growing up thinking that's normal. If Ivanka can't tear down her own father in public does that mean she can't advocate for other women? There is a difference between calling a man out for sexually harassing and assaulting women and then calling out a woman for being married/related to a man who's done the same. (Especially given how our society treats women; how women are supposed to act when they've been attacked, how women are supposed to behave if their family member/spouse is accused of having attacked or harassed a woman- but even that depends on whether or not he's guilty so it's a bit of a trap, a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. We have a whole lot of You're Supposed To's for women....)

So HRC. Publicly embarrassed by a husband she loved, shamed and blamed by the press and millions of Americans for her husband's affairs, trotted out by the Clinton administration after the public revelations to promote 'unity', and is still far more likely to be asked questions about Bill's actions than is Bill. I'm not sure what to ask of her. It's known they fought brutally about this for years, that the accusations were devastating for her, that having to stand beside him on tv and act like it didn't bother her hit her pride like a sledgehammer. Bill Clinton's been dragged for this, was nearly impeached. Are people genuinely interested in seeing him prosecuted? Because most people don't seem to support it and God knows that's not what Trump was calling for. He was just trying to humiliate HRC and deflect from the criticisms against his own behavior. It's absolutely fair to call out Trump for the things he's said and done; he's responsible for his own behavior. But if people aren't interested in calling out Bill anymore and they aren't interested in prosecuting him....what exactly do people want from her?

Personally, I can't imagine this had much effect. I think it was a case of a lot of people just won't vote, a lot of people stayed home because they feel taken for granted, and the people who might've voted for her but went for Trump were probably the immigration/terrorism voters (aka racist, xenophobic centrists).

Edited December 8, 2016 by slf

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Is Hillary still alive?

Pretty sure she just made a speech in a retirement tribute to Harry Reid so she's fine, yeah. 

[slf]

7 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Pretty sure she just made a speech in a retirement tribute to Harry Reid so she's fine, yeah. 

As disappointing as her loss is for me, and a huge chunk of the country, she's kind of got the better deal here than Trump. She won the popular vote so he'll always have that hanging over his presidency, he has to make good on most of his absurd promises which he's already failing at, he has to take the never-ending criticism for the next four years, he has to deal with Russia and China and Israel and Syria, and there's no way he's not going to fuck most of it up. At this point in time it is clear to all but the most stubborn or delusional supporters that he's going to fail and fail spectacularly. There are plenty of Republicans who, my hatred notwithstanding, would be competent members of his cabinet but he can't even do that properly so we've got a guy who believes in Pizzagate and (maybe) another who thinks people don't actually have to die. He's already fucking up the most basic of tasks. There is no way at the end of his first term people aren't going to be saying "it would've been better with Hillary."

[Keepitmoving]

29 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Pretty sure she just made a speech in a retirement tribute to Harry Reid so she's fine, yeah. 

All I want to hear is how many more millions she's made while laughing at the conspiracy theorists and their Fuhrer whose going to "bring back their jobs."

4 hours ago, film noire said:

If Trump had been the target of a left wing special prosecutor who spent two years (and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars) investigating Trump's illegal  (not merely boorish) behavior,  then maybe there'd be a comparison between the two cases. As is, Bill Clinton was investigated and had to face the political and legal implications of his behavior (none of which were HRC's to atone for as a candidate. She is not her husband).  Trump never faced a single penalty for his years of sexual misconduct. But if sexual issues truly were what those voters were looking at, they helped elect someone accused of raping a thirteen year old girl (with a court date in December) so hypocrisy doesn't even begin to cover the moral failure of those voters.

And you know something else, Bill Clinton knows how to STFU and not terrorize his accusers in public, by calling them names and threatening to sue them. Key difference for me in addition to him having to answer for his alleged crimes in court. But see Bill Clinton wasn't trying to be the second coming of Hitler. He knew if any shit came out he'd have to answer for it, that he couldn't go around bragging about pussy grabbing and get away with it because his cult followers would bow down no matter the crime.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[ruby24]

I have a complicated relationship with this issue, because I must admit that I myself have wanted her to leave Bill for years because of his behavior. I don't blame women for staying with terrible men, but I admire more the strength of those who leave them for it.

I would admire Ivanka if she disowned her father for his terrible behavior. I myself have a dad who I finally realized is a bad person and I don't have a relationship with him anymore. There is nothing you can say that would convince me Ivanka is unaware of how sexually predatory and awful her father is. But she just doesn't care (because she's like him).

I don't know why Hillary stayed with Bill, but I do suspect it had to do with her career more than anything else. I don't blame her for that but I would have loved it if she'd left him after the White House and still pursued her career. I think she would have still been successful, she would have a LOT of admirers for going after her own career after what he put her through.

Edited December 9, 2016 by ruby24

[film noire]

3 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

Is Hillary still alive? (snip for space) 

The answer to all your questions, courtesy of Politics USA:

"Perhaps it’s fitting that as Donald Trump stocks his cabinet with cronies, misfits, and stooges, Hillary Clinton, who was favored to win the 2016 presidential election, is the one who is actually acting presidential.

"After a few weeks of taking selfies in the woods, I thought it’d be a good idea to come out,” the former Secretary of State told the audience, to appreciative (tinged with desperation? It’s possible I’m projecting) laughter. Clinton’s self-deprecating humor shows the thicker skin needed in a president. No Hamilton tweet poutfests for Ms. Clinton.

It’s hard to watch Hillary Clinton right now, because the nation chose her over Donald Trump by at least 2.5 million votes. Donald Trump enters office with the lowest approval rating of any president-elect in 27 years, according to a new Pew poll...we are stuck with the guy who took a call with Taiwan, praised the despotic president of Kazakhstan, and said he hoped to visit Pakistan, all while dealing with crisis after crisis of his own making, including the fallout from his choice for conspiracy artist General Michael Flynn as his National Security Adviser.

If only Santa could bring us the woman taking selfies in the woods as president."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/08/hillary-clinton-presidential-one-dusts-wounds-celebrate-harry-reid.html

Edited December 9, 2016 by film noire

[Duke Silver]

Former Clinton staffer launches new anti-Trump site: corrupt.af

Quote

 

Officially, the “af” in the site’s web address is the country code for Afghanistan, which administers the top-level domain along with some help from the United Nations.

Unofficially, in the abbreviated argot of texting and online chatting, “af” stands for “as fuck.”

 

[slf]

So who do y'all think HRC would've tapped for her cabinet? Surely people qualified for their posts, at the bare minimum.

[Padma]

Her cabinet would have been amazing, especially if states had Dem governors so she could choose whoever she wanted from Congress.  It wouldn't have been a Cabinet appointment, but I would have gotten a kick out of it if she'd had a veto-proof majority in Congress and appt. Obama to the SC.  There are more liberal Dems who might be better choices, but no one that would annoy Republican haters as much as that.                            

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Quote

Uhggg she is around, being trotted out at Harry's shove out

She is a person.

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

How she is able to talk about fake news with a straight face is perplexing. She of the "I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and had to run for her life" tale.

It's not really that perplexing. It's GOOD thing that her exaggerated story was fact checked and found to be just that, somebody making themselves sound heroic and playing with the facts. And she should admit to it. Not say that the Lügenpresse was the one lying and let's attack them for it. The fact that she herself has lied in her life does not actually mean that she can't see the value in real news.  

Trump represents the other side of the coin, where he lies and lies, and when called out just keeps lying or says the press is lying and everyone just disregard truth entirely and reject the press and just listen to what he's saying right this moment even if it's contradicting what it said before. Hell, the guy's rejected the findings of his own intelligence agencies because he was currently happy with Russia. If you only like people calling out fake news when you mean they told the person you don't like that they were lying (even if they were actually telling the truth) you're not pro-truth. 

[NewDigs]

 

Politifact truthiness findings reported on WaPo.

 

Whose red nose is the longest? 

Edited December 9, 2016 by NewDigs

[Chicken Wing]

4 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

 

Politifact truthiness findings reported on WaPo.

 

Whose red nose is the longest? 

And you can explain every single one of the true and false statements of both to Trump supporters and they will literally contort logic into a pretzel to justify Trump's lies and find dishonesty in Clinton's accuracies. Really, though, they don't care. Dontcha know? We're in a post-truth world. It doesn't matter if something isn't true. If it sounds good enough, it's true. If it seems like the kind of thing that might be true, it's true. If it falls in line with something you convinced yourself of for no reason other than your own personal beliefs or ignorance, or both, then it's true. If you believe in it enough, really, really believe in it, it'll be true in your mind and that's all that matters. We are truly shaping up to be a nation of morons.

[NewDigs]

2 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

And you can explain every single one of the true and false statements of both to Trump supporters and they will literally contort logic into a pretzel to justify Trump's lies and find dishonesty in Clinton's accuracies. 

Or they deflect deflect deflect.

"Benghazi!" "E-mails!" "Libya!" "Bill!" 

But complete silence regarding the "pussy grabber" and everything else. Except there were those women saying that he could grab them! 

It's like collective ADD.

[slf]

11 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

Uhggg she is around, being trotted out at Harry's shove out. How she is able to talk about fake news with a straight face is perplexing. She of the "I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and had to run for her life" tale.  Or maybe she was referring to the polls that showed her winning. Or the commentators who said Trump had no chance of winning. Yeah, I guess there is a lot of fake news out there.

I'm not sure how the polls could be considered false news? Or the Bosnia story? The polls were correct, she received the majority of the votes- overwhelmingly so. What the polls, and everyone else, neglected to take into consideration was the electoral college. While the EC of course votes every election it's rare for their vote to contradict the popular vote. So, historically: winner of the popular vote = president. Ultimately incorrect but not fake. As for the Bosnia story, that's not fake news? It was an exaggerated story that was promptly debunked by the news. The news reported the accurate story.

Fake news is when reporters/journalists circulate stories they know to be false. So like conservative sites reporting that Donald Trump won the popular vote which a third of Republicans believe is true. Or that George Soros is paying thousands of people to protest and has been for over a year.

11 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

At least CNN host Trapper is trying to correct some fake news:

http://americanlookout.com/jake-tapper-slams-liberal-site-slate-for-falsely-smearing-kellyanne-conway/

And my favorite guy Tucker is doing a great job with correcting the fake Russian hack news:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/crazy-dem-strategist-calls-retaliation-russia-even-though-admits-theres-no-smoking-gun-video/

and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvMeGugrt1g

Not fake news, misinformation which is unfortunately part of the industry. The difference? Slate was, as they say, basing their info on a report from Politico which was hosting the event. When they received evidence that the report was inaccurate they corrected their story and posted an update at the top of the article, explaining what they got wrong, what information was actually correct, and admitting they were wrong. A fake news site makes no attempt to correct the false information because the false information is the point.

The Gateway Pundit and American Lookout are kind of in the false news market. Some of the stuff they post is true-ish but they're great examples of distorting the truth via spin. Any news site with headlines that begin with "Crazy Sore Loser Democrat" is...not being staffed with journalists who appreciate integrity and honest reporting.

As for Tucker...no, sorry. Russia is suspected of being behind these hacks for very good reason. As is pointed out in this article from Pulitzer prize-winning Politifact many cybersecurity firms and experts who've been analyzing the available data are mostly in agreement it was Russia. Intelligence agencies have also said the same, per the New York Times. This article from the New York Times also has information regarding Russia's involvement.

Many conservative websites report without any credible evidence or sources that Soros is paying protesters. But, you know, the director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Homeland Security aren't valid enough sources for this to at least be given real consideration.

ETA: And now the CIA believes Russia was involved. Everything is pointing toward it. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by slf
because, remarkably, i misspelled 'they' twice

[ruby24]

Hillary's popular vote lead is now at 2.83 million, or 2.1% ahead.

[SoCal4Us]

^ Here in California, Hillary's now up over 4 million.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

You see, this kind of passiveness is why Dems have lost all control to the Reps. If a Republican president was at the helm while a  foreign entity was interfering with election to favor the Dems, you can bet all your retirement they'll do everything to put a stop to it.

Now that the election is done and they've lost, they are releasing information that it did in fact happened. So fucking what? It is not as if they are going to do anything about it.

Ugh! 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Deputy Deputy CoS

[Advance35]

 Follow 

Colleen‏@KnudsenColleen

@davebernstein @bannerite Call DOJ 202-353-1555 about Russian interference with election results. Calls are collected & taken seriously.

I don't know how this will effect the outcome of the election or if it will at all but the more I learn the more suspect I am about the results.  I would advise everyone to call.

[shok]

4 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

You see, this kind of passiveness is why Dems have lost all control to the Reps. If a Republican president was at the helm while a  foreign entity was interfering with election to favor the Dems, you can bet all your retirement they'll do everything to put a stop to it.

Now that the election is done and they've lost, they are releasing information that it did in fact happened. So fucking what? It is not as if they are going to do anything about it.

Ugh! 

But it's not the passiveness of the Dems, it's the Republicans playing dirty with their constant lies and cheating. In September Obama had a meeting with the congressional intelligence committees and this information from the CIA and the other intelligence services was discussed. Obama and the Dems wanted the info revealed so the public would know what was going on before the election. Turtle McConnell and most of the rest of the Repugs refused and McConnell said if Obama released it he would fight it and deny any of it was true and call it a political stunt by the Democrats and as we all know, the Repugs are vicious when they want to get their spin on any story out. For various reasons, the Dems decided it was a fight they would probably lose in the media since the media was already giving the orange buffoon a pass on almost everything he did and said and even though they tried to get the Russian espionage story out there, the media mostly ignored it because they had more important things to talk incessantly about...like emails.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

10 hours ago, shok said:

But it's not the passiveness of the Dems, it's the Republicans playing dirty with their constant lies and cheating. In September Obama had a meeting with the congressional intelligence committees and this information from the CIA and the other intelligence services was discussed. Obama and the Dems wanted the info revealed so the public would know what was going on before the election. Turtle McConnell and most of the rest of the Repugs refused and McConnell said if Obama released it he would fight it and deny any of it was true and call it a political stunt by the Democrats and as we all know, the Repugs are vicious when they want to get their spin on any story out. For various reasons, the Dems decided it was a fight they would probably lose in the media since the media was already giving the orange buffoon a pass on almost everything he did and said and even though they tried to get the Russian espionage story out there, the media mostly ignored it because they had more important things to talk incessantly about...like emails.

So the Dems should have gone ahead and revealed it. 

Do the Reps listen to the Dems wishes and do the right thing? No. They do what is best for them and their base. Every. Single. Time.

The Dems are playing a game following rules when their opposition is following none. I am so sick for turning the other cheek so to speak. They have to be as cutthroat t stay in the fray. Even when they do the right thing, the other half of the country hates them anyway and they let their own base down. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Deputy Deputy CoS