CenterBHSFan;1871566 wrote:Pretty much this, particularly the last sentence.

I keep hoping that she just goes away, but she's made it clear that she's not willing to undergo obscurity. She's also stated that she's participating in the resistance, but I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps she's joined antifa? BLM? BAMN?

I doubt she does, either. She's always come off as the pure corporate type who loves to use buzzwords without actually comprehending them. IT SOUNDS LOUD AND FANCY, SO THAT'S MY NEW SLOGAN!!!!

CenterBHSFan;1871566 wrote:She's also stated that she's participating in the resistance

LOL, that's the new Dem catchphrase. When Repubs did it with Obama, it was "obstruction". But when the Dems do it, it's "resistance".

That party has simply kept going further and further left faster and faster, and becoming increasingly partisan. The so-called Republican establishment is about the only reasonable adults left in the room.

Heretic;1871568 wrote:I doubt she does, either. She's always come off as the pure corporate type who loves to use buzzwords without actually comprehending them. IT SOUNDS LOUD AND FANCY, SO THAT'S MY NEW SLOGAN!!!!

hahaha! Her slogan should have been "I'M WITH ZHIR!" and she might have had a few more votes.

gut;1871570 wrote:That party has simply kept going further and further left faster and faster, and becoming increasingly partisan. The so-called Republican establishment is about the only reasonable adults left in the room.

This is what blows my mind: the fact that the more and more democrats in power veer hard left, the more classical liberals and moderates (left and right) are now called "right wing" or "alt right".
Five years ago I would have sworn up and down that this couldn't happen lol!

I mean, Hillary is A LOT egomaniac, too. I'm honestly not sure we'd be better off with her as POTUS (certainly not an Obama 3rd term).

What more can I say - I finally had two choices for POTUS who were both so fucking scary I couldn't vote for either one.

Heretic;1871556 wrote:The excerpts I've seen have followed a theme of whining that other people didn't support her enough (Biden) or actually were *gasp* trying to score points against her in the primary, which made her look weaker against Trump (Bernie). When your description of "what happened" comes down to "IT WAS MY TURN AND YOU PEOPLE RUINED IT FOR ME!!!!!", you definitely showed why you couldn't beat a guy who only got about 25% of the popular vote, just not in the way you thought you did.

This screams that she is also unfit for the office. She wasn't prepared for the end result of the election, and she has been less than diplomatic about the process as a result.

CenterBHSFan;1871566 wrote:Pretty much this, particularly the last sentence.

I keep hoping that she just goes away, but she's made it clear that she's not willing to undergo obscurity. She's also stated that she's participating in the resistance, but I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps she's joined antifa? BLM? BAMN?

You can bet she hasn't joined any of those. She's too tied to corporate interests for that.

Heretic;1871568 wrote:I doubt she does, either. She's always come off as the pure corporate type who loves to use buzzwords without actually comprehending them. IT SOUNDS LOUD AND FANCY, SO THAT'S MY NEW SLOGAN!!!!

Hillary Clinton is proof that party lines don't necessarily make someone any more or less in-touch with average citizens. Truth be told, she's a lot like the "old, white men" of the Republican party that were criticized so harshly during Obama's two campaigns, at least in attitude, personality, and interests.

gut;1871570 wrote:That party has simply kept going further and further left faster and faster, and becoming increasingly partisan. The so-called Republican establishment is about the only reasonable adults left in the room.

Not sure I'm ready to call them "reasonable," but they're seemingly the closest thing to it in Washington at the moment.

CenterBHSFan;1871576 wrote:This is what blows my mind: the fact that the more and more democrats in power veer hard left, the more classical liberals and moderates (left and right) are now called "right wing" or "alt right".
Five years ago I would have sworn up and down that this couldn't happen lol!

Classical liberals seem to get it from both sides of the aisle, to be fair.

gut;1871588 wrote:I mean, Hillary is A LOT egomaniac, too. I'm honestly not sure we'd be better off with her as POTUS (certainly not an Obama 3rd term).

What more can I say - I finally had two choices for POTUS who were both so fucking scary I couldn't vote for either one.

^ That.

O-Trap;1871607 wrote:Classical liberals seem to get it from both sides of the aisle, to be fair.

Of course they do, I still give them shit from time to time myself haha!

But they are really getting hell, disproportionately, from the left at this point. And I'm ok with that. It is my hope (really a pipe dream, though) that the party burns itself down to the ground, gets reassembled in a manner that recognizes that poverty is more important than pronouns and can figure out the best way to get people out of the repetitive monotony of being a Pavlov dog.

O-Trap;1871607 wrote:This screams that she is also unfit for the office.

Simpler and clearer than how I was trying to say it.

CenterBHSFan;1871619 wrote:Of course they do, I still give them shit from time to time myself haha!

But they are really getting hell, disproportionately, from the left at this point. And I'm ok with that. It is my hope (really a pipe dream, though) that the party burns itself down to the ground, gets reassembled in a manner that recognizes that poverty is more important than pronouns and can figure out the best way to get people out of the repetitive monotony of being a Pavlov dog.

Certainly. Mention terms like "freedom of association" or the "non-aggression principle," and you can almost see most Democra/neo-liberal types turning redder.

It's amazing how many people can get so upset with a worldview that can be summed up by saying, "Let's not take or damage each other's stuff without consent, and let's not try to force each other to do stuff against each other's will."

gut;1871635 wrote:Simpler and clearer than how I was trying to say it.

Whoa. Did I just get noticed for brevity?

CenterBHSFan;1871619 wrote:...that recognizes that poverty is more important than pronouns and can figure out the best way to get people out of the repetitive monotony of being a Pavlov dog.

I'm afraid, given globalization and automation, that his may only be the start - globally, more and more people competing for fewer jobs.

And people keep pointing fingers at the rich, but the rich shaving $50k off $1M isn't the fundamental issue of dividing $950k one hundred ways instead of 10. And because no one has solutions, people and politics are going to be more divided.

The only way this works out is if we have the resources to produce at 1/100th the cost. I don't know if we have enough copper, rare metals, etc, but in theory as robots get better and better (BOTH extraction and production), cost goes to almost $0. The one big flaw is ENERGY is currently a rather limited (and expensive) resource.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sexism-happened-hillary-090056161.html

I find it funny that sexism could even be brought up as a possible factor in Clinton's loss. She was simply the worst possible politician the Left could put up for election. Regardless of race or gender.

It's all identity politics for losers to cry about. Put up Nikki Haley (a minority woman) against whoever, and I can assure you no material amount of actual conservatives wouldn't vote for her bc she's a woman or not white. It's all overplayed and getting old.

iclfan2;1871676 wrote:It's all identity politics for losers to cry about. Put up Nikki Haley (a minority woman) against whoever, and I can assure you no material amount of actual conservatives wouldn't vote for her bc she's a woman or not white. It's all overplayed and getting old.

Don't disagree with you other than saying people wouldn't vote for Haley because she's a woman. There would definitely be even staunch conservatives that would refuse to vote for a woman.

gut;1871588 wrote:I mean, Hillary is A LOT egomaniac, too. I'm honestly not sure we'd be better off with her as POTUS (certainly not an Obama 3rd term).

What more can I say - I finally had two choices for POTUS who were both so fucking scary I couldn't vote for either one.

HC as president would of been a huge smear to Obama. She would of wiped out his legacy for sure (not that he will ever be considered a good prez). THe CLintons are about the Clintons and never liked Obama.

Spock;1871688 wrote:HC as president would of been a huge smear to Obama. She would of wiped out his legacy for sure (not that he will ever be considered a good prez). THe CLintons are about the Clintons and never liked Obama.

They seem to have liked Trump, though.

ppaw1999;1871675 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/sexism-happened-hillary-090056161.html

I find it funny that sexism could even be brought up as a possible factor in Clinton's loss. She was simply the worst possible politician the Left could put up for election. Regardless of race or gender.

iclfan2;1871676 wrote:It's all identity politics for losers to cry about. Put up Nikki Haley (a minority woman) against whoever, and I can assure you no material amount of actual conservatives wouldn't vote for her bc she's a woman or not white. It's all overplayed and getting old.

Yeah, figured the opinion on here would be this.
I've not read her book, probably won't, but from various passages it does seem like she takes on some blame, but casts a lot of it on other factors as well.
I think she is partially right.

It will be interesting to see how historians looks at the 2016 elections 50-100 years from now. Truth be told, the factors why she lost may be a combination of everything: she was a women and did not want to vote for a women in the back of their minds, people were pissed, they did not want status quo, she was not a likeable candidate, she did not have one big idea (I'm with her v. MAGA), the FBI letter days before reinforced and brought back all the baggage, the stream of fake stories that reinforced perceived bias, a ton of baggage, and the fact that Trump was just totally not like anything we have ever seen and some people said, ehh let's give it a shot.

ppaw1999;1871675 wrote: I find it funny that sexism could even be brought up as a possible factor in Clinton's loss.

The left is pre-programmed to blame sex or race any time they don't get their way. It has grown beyond tiresome.

Interesting that I think Hillary is becoming less popular (and looking MORE unelectable) since losing the election, same as Al Gore. Notice a trend here, Democrats?

Romney, on the other hand, people were like "that was a mistake not picking him - he's actually a good, likable guy and nothing like they told me on MSNBC".

SportsAndLady;1871681 wrote:Don't disagree with you other than saying people wouldn't vote for Haley because she's a woman. There would definitely be even staunch conservatives that would refuse to vote for a woman.

Those aren't necessarily "staunch conservatives"...those are true sexists that may also be conservatives. But less obviously, you can even have people who for all intents and purposes are "progressive", but hide their sexism, even from themselves. I have a relative who claims to be a progressive, but didn't vote for Hilary. Of course he had another excuse, but knowing him well enough, I can say that he just hates women.
True racists and sexists do exist in our society, but it is a lot smaller number than the left would have you believe. The narrative that racists and sexists exclusively belong to the Republican party/conservatives is a false narrative propagated for political purposes by the left/Democratic party.
A case can be made that there may even be more Democrats than Republicans...if you simply allow a definition to include those that use race or gender for manipulative purposes.

HitsRus;1871710 wrote:The narrative that racists and sexists exclusively belong to the Republican party/conservatives is a false narrative propagated for political purposes by the left/Democratic party.

Sexism and harassment appear to be alive and well in Silicon Valley - a liberal stronghold. You are absolutely right - there is plenty of intolerance and discrimination on the left, but they hope nobody will notice if they just scream loud enough about what bathroom people can use.

HitsRus;1871710 wrote:Those aren't necessarily "staunch conservatives"...those are true sexists that may also be conservatives. But less obviously, you can even have people who for all intents and purposes are "progressive", but hide their sexism, even from themselves. I have a relative who claims to be a progressive, but didn't vote for Hilary. Of course he had another excuse, but knowing him well enough, I can say that he just hates women.
True racists and sexists do exist in our society, but it is a lot smaller number than the left would have you believe. The narrative that racists and sexists exclusively belong to the Republican party/conservatives is a false narrative propagated for political purposes by the left/Democratic party.
A case can be made that there may even be more Democrats than Republicans...if you simply allow a definition to include those that use race or gender for manipulative purposes.

Lol who cares if they're conservatives who are sexist or sexists who are conservative?

His line of "no conservative would refuse to vote for a woman" is just wrong. There are plenty of people out there, republican/democrat/libertarian/spaghetti alien party, that would refuse to vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

Not a lot, but some.

Hillary wouldn't even come out on the stage when it was clear that she had lost the election. Her campaign manager had to be the one to do it. She couldn't face and deal with that reality and make herself walk out there and talk to the people who supported her and spent the money. I'm glad she's not our President for that and a whole host of other reasons.

Oh, God! I'm sooo sexist! D:

CenterBHSFan;1871716 wrote:Hillary wouldn't even come out on the stage when it was clear that she had lost the election.

I heard she admitted she hadn't even written a concession speech. Also, I think in her book she says she purchased a neighboring home for $1.6M to house her Secret Service security detail.

She was 100% convinced she was going to win. That's why she barely campaigned and made little attempt to connect to voters. Expecting 8 more years of Obama and first woman POTUS to carry you with little effort is another horrible miscalculation that speaks to her unfitness for office.

Many positions and few accomplishments - it's a fair argument to say much was handed to her, riding on Bill's coattails, because of ideals she represented and symbolized rather than qualifications and abilities she had. For all intents and purposes, she was nothing more than an empty pants suit.

SportsAndLady;1871714 wrote:Lol who cares if they're conservatives who are sexist or sexists who are conservative?

His line of "no conservative would refuse to vote for a woman" is just wrong. There are plenty of people out there, republican/democrat/libertarian/spaghetti alien party, that would refuse to vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

Not a lot, but some.

I didn't say none, I said not a material amount. What Hilary is alluding to is that a MATERIAL amount didn't vote for her.

But the opposite is also true. Guarantee both would get votes just for being a woman. Neither of which would be material.