It wasn't the emails, the FBI, Huma, or the Russians, I think this is why Hillary lost the election.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DearthnVader, Dec 15, 2016.

  1. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #1
    It was her 47% moment:

     
  2. Shirasaki macrumors 603

    Shirasaki

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    #2
    So what if Clinton win? Would such "research" be conducted on Trump as well?
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    nope, Liberals would be gloating jumping up & dow saying over & over " we told you so" .

     
  4. DearthnVader thread starter macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #4
    Yes, there would have been an extensive post-mortem.
     
  5. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #5
    The best part of this election isn't that Trump won it's that Clinton lost. Priceless hearing that she had to cancel her fireworks and had the Javits center so quiet one could hear a pin drop.
     
  6. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #6
    I've enjoyed not seeing her turkey beck or her big lying ass for the last few weeks. It's been great. I thought we would have to endure a very long swan song. But she just disappeared.
     
  7. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #7
    Even better when Trump offered to buy the fireworks for .05 on the dollar.
     
  8. Michael Scrip macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Location:
    NC
    #8
    Trump won. I wasn't too happy about it when it happened... but I will support the President. I'm actually curious to see what he'll do.

    And since Trump won... what's with this "Thank You Tour" ?

    Has any other President-Elect ever done that? I honestly don't remember.

    It's one thing to hold rallies to get support in order to get elected. But after you've already won?

    Who's he trying to convince now?
     
  9. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #9
    You couldn't hear a pin drop over the sorority girls gently weeping.

    IMG_0041.JPG
     
  10. Shirasaki macrumors 603

    Shirasaki

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    #10
    Huh? They frame themselves as "the person who is destined to save the world"? Wait, not them, but Clinton. They just support her.

    Does any liberal say "we told you so" after Trump won presidency?
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    no, they would have said that had she won.
     
  12. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #12
    I think this is kinda fascinating, myself. Almost everybody celebrating after this election seem to be shouting "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!" from the rooftops. Not nearly as many people proclaiming "Yeah, we've got a great new president!"

    It feels like this election was just a referendum on Clinton. That if she ran against a cardboard box, the box would have won.

    Does anybody actually care about the future of this country, though? If Trump were to, say, start WWIII, would the people celebrating today still say "well, we destroyed the United States and killed off 50% of the people on the planet, but at least we didn't have to live under Clinton!" It kinda feels that way to me right now. ;)
     
  13. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #13
    The Youtube video with Wolf Blitzer never gets old.
    This one.
     
  14. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #14
    He's not great. But Hillary was so dirty and corrupt she had to go down.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 15, 2016 ---
    And we avoided WWIII by not electing Hillary. She was already banging the war drum against Russia.
     
  15. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    Frankly I find it weird that some posters are deriving joy from other people's misery. Get a life.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    worse in GOVT (Clinton) lost to the worse in society. MOST liberals only care about war when republicans are in office.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 15, 2016 ---
    you mean like the way trump supporters were constantly ridiculed & called names while being told Clinton was going to mop the floor with him & it was going to be a landslide victory for her & how could they ever think he was going to win? try video on post 13.
     
  17. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #17
    Who? And what misery is there to be had?
     
  18. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #18
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Populism, Dec 15, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2016

    Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #19
    I agree. Trump's "thank you" tour is asinine. Another indication of his megalomania, and lack of political training.

    The only "tour" more embarrassing was Obama's six-month 2009 World Apology Tour.
     
  20. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #20
    This was a toilet bowl election, trying to decide which of these two turds was least objectionable. At least with Trump, we stand a chance of being screwed over in a new and more entertaining way. At least it would be novel.

    Sooooo, your saying there's some part of the world Clinton didn't start a war in as SOS.
     
  21. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #21
    Funny thing, though; Hillary isn't dirty or corrupt. Everybody just desperately wants her to be dirty and corrupt.

    Er, I don't think opposing Russia gets us as close to war as supporting Russia does. I get the feeling that Trump would really like to send ground troops into Syria to support Putin & Assad. Plus, Trump is treating Taiwan as a sovereign state, and Mexico as an enemy. And, yeah, he's torpedoing NATO in multiple ways now.

    At the very least, Trump is introducing instability into the exiting international political order. At worst, he's destroying all the fundamental pillars upon which current international standards are based.
     
  22. hiddenmarkov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Japan
    #22

    First...since playing reconstructionist and worst case future scenario why aren't we having Hillary start WWIII as an option as well.

    Second...well yeah it is. That's what election break down to. who is running. and how good they work this. rolling back the clock we see JFK. relatively young man, more ideals than decades of years in politics to work from. He won a few points to edge a victory on presentation we could argue.

    And yes...this election pick wise sucked ass imo. to me it was the worst case of truly pick the person who you think sucked less. No one won this election imo. I liked neither candidate. But press me into corner...Trump basically I think sucked/sucks less than Hillary. So yeah I will say many can't say yeah, we got a great president. Neither option would have given that result.




    here is my take on Clinton. She came off shadier to me than Donald trump. Which is sad really. TV, casino's, real estate...shady factor is wtf uber high off the charts here. Coming off cleaner than Donald...should not be hard for a reasonable candidate. I will make the joke Nixon (post Watergate even) could possible pull this off.

    She failed in this. Something awry there. This should have been a present. The opposite happened. For Clinton...we can make the joke she was quite possibly the only other candidate running with litigation/investigation history to rival trump. Not a good stat really.

    Thing is...with trump his stuff closes legit all the time. Where as with the Clintons...tragedy works out well for them.. People tend to die around them a lot. And by mere coincidence, ofc, these people could possibly have given damaging testimony in investigations. Don't have to make the tin foil hat here....it makes itself really.
     
  23. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    Well... Yeah. In the last two and a half decades, we had a Democrat in office who avoided doing much more than sending tomahawk missiles at various terrorist-related locations; a Republican who started two enormous, bloody, expensive and fruitless wars in the Mideast; and a Democrat who, at the cost of his own political capital, got out of one of those wars and avoided going into Syria or anywhere else in the post-Arab-Spring nightmare.

    Right now, Republican presidential terms are looking a heck of a lot worse than Democratic ones.
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    You're kidding, right?
     
  25. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #25
    Ok, that's fine. It's just that people here seem to believe that she would start WWIII. Or that they would prefer a WWIII created by Trump than a WWIII created by Clinton.

    All I'm trying to get at is the level of anti-Clinton invective is extreme. To an irrational level. Clinton is a fairly standard politician, with policies and beliefs that are very similar to the guy we've just had in office for the last eight years. She's even been part of that administration. Compared to the Bush years, the Obama administration has been fairly smooth sailing; no new wars, no new economic collapse. Electing Clinton, at the very least, would have meant only minor changes in the executive branch.

    Trump is a political neophyte. He has no policies of his own. He has no experience relevant to this job. He's not even a Republican. His only promise is that he'd overturn government as usual, and I believe him. The problem is, he has nothing to replace it with. Electing Trump means, effectively, rendering the federal executive branch moot; or, worse, handing it over to an autocrat to play with as he sees.

    The Carrier deal is, I think, an ominous sign for the future. Donald Trump is likely to start stepping into boardrooms across the country in the next few years, and making his own decisions for companies whether they like it or not.

    And this is what I can't understand. We've got an enormous amount of info on Hillary. We know her policies, her governing style, her history; she is a known quantity. People don't like her, I think, either because she doesn't have a winning personality, or because they've been fed fake news for so long they don't even consider the truth any more.

    We don't know anything about how Trump will govern, other than the fact that Trump has never governed before, and has zero interest in the policies of government. This does not bode well.

    What is this? Where does this crap come from? All these crazy conspiracy theories about the Clintons; and yet, nobody seems to care that Trump wanted the Central Park Five to die; and he even wanted them to be killed after they were proven innocent. That Trump is praising Duterte for his death squads in the Philippines. It's like conspiracy theories are more credible than truth is these days. :(
    --- Post Merged, Dec 15, 2016 ---
    Er, hello? Where have you been the last couple of decades? Iraq and Afghanistan were awful wars, killing thousands of Americans, costing trillions of dollars, and producing pretty much nothing in the way of results (other than empowering Iran in the Mideast). These were wars of choice, entered into by the Bush administration.
     

Share This Page