PDA

View Full Version : Suppose all the negative baggage Hillary carries is unfair



JVV
09-08-2016, 01:08 AM
Suppose that all the negative things that people think about Hillary are unfounded.

It is still a fact that people believe all those negative things about Hillary.

For that reason, I am baffled whenever I try to understand why Democrats decided that it didn't matter how much people dislike Hillary.

"It's not fair that people dislike Hillary, so we are going to nominate her for president anyway." Is that what they were thinking?


That just doesn't make sense. It's a denial of reality.


Democrats couldn't know that Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate one of the very few possibilities that people hate worse than Hillary. So what were they thinking when they put practically all of their eggs in her basket in the pre-primary season?

valley ranch
09-08-2016, 01:26 AM
It was the plan, it seems, of both parties allow us to choose between A Clinton and A Bush. They not the media nor the big money, had any dream that the American people would put forward a good person of their choice.

Donald Trump is an honest man a smart man and will make a fine president. It was against all odds that the American people chose him and just as you didn't see it coming, we want a real choice, a real American President.

They gave Obama on the job training for the job. Donald Trump will be a great president, and has what it takes to do the job already.

Yep! Donald Trump~President of the United States~ sounds pretty good!

Beevee
09-08-2016, 06:26 AM
Suppose that all the negative things that people think about Hillary are unfounded.

It is still a fact that people believe all those negative things about Hillary.

For that reason, I am baffled whenever I try to understand why Democrats decided that it didn't matter how much people dislike Hillary.

"It's not fair that people dislike Hillary, so we are going to nominate her for president anyway." Is that what they were thinking?


That just doesn't make sense. It's a denial of reality.


Democrats couldn't know that Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate one of the very few possibilities that people hate worse than Hillary. So what were they thinking when they put practically all of their eggs in her basket in the pre-primary season?

The GOP on the other hand supports Trump 100%

Except those in the GOP that don't.

Still 100% is 100%. That can't be changed. It's only a figure of speech, much like every one of the Donald's comments.

Crepitus
09-08-2016, 07:40 AM
It was the plan, it seems, of both parties allow us to choose between A Clinton and A Bush. They not the media nor the big money, had any dream that the American people would put forward a good person of their choice.

Donald Trump is an honest man a smart man and will make a fine president. It was against all odds that the American people chose him and just as you didn't see it coming, we want a real choice, a real American President.

They gave Obama on the job training for the job. Donald Trump will be a great president, and has what it takes to do the job already.

Yep! Donald Trump~President of the United States~ sounds pretty good!
Wow.....


Here, let me refill your Koolaide........

Mark III
09-08-2016, 07:53 AM
It was the plan, it seems, of both parties allow us to choose between A Clinton and A Bush. They not the media nor the big money, had any dream that the American people would put forward a good person of their choice.



Donald Trump is an honest man a smart man and will make a fine president. It was against all odds that the American people chose him and just as you didn't see it coming, we want a real choice, a real American President.

They gave Obama on the job training for the job. Donald Trump will be a great president, and has what it takes to do the job already.

Yep! Donald Trump~President of the United States~ sounds pretty good!


Donald Trump is an honest man

put down the crack pipe, for your own sake

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 07:58 AM
Wow.....


Here, let me refill your Koolaide........

In what way is Hillary Rodham Clinton more honest or more intelligent than Donald Trump? Point out to us please what real accomplishments Hillary Rodham Clinton has earned based on her own performance. Point out to us exactly where Donald Trump's dishonest actions have risen to the level we see with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And finally, tell us why instead of responding in a civilized manner you turn to belittling the poster.

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 07:59 AM
Donald Trump is an honest man

put down the crack pipe, for your own sake

See above post, same questions for you.

Crepitus
09-08-2016, 08:08 AM
In what way is Hillary Rodham Clinton more honest or more intelligent than Donald Trump? Point out to us please what real accomplishments Hillary Rodham Clinton has earned based on her own performance. Point out to us exactly where Donald Trump's dishonest actions have risen to the level we see with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And finally, tell us why instead of responding in a civilized manner you turn to belittling the poster.
In what way do you think I support Clinton?

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 08:12 AM
In what way do you think I support Clinton?

In what way do you think I think you support Clinton?

I mean, after all just because the thread was about Clinton and Trump and you chimed in negatively about Trump a reasonable person would assume you were a supporter.

You, by the way, are an arrogant SOB.

Have a nice day.

Crepitus
09-08-2016, 08:18 AM
In what way do you think I think you support Clinton?

I mean, after all just because the thread was about Clinton and Trump and you chimed in negatively about Trump a reasonable person would assume you were a supporter.

You, by the way, are an arrogant SOB.

Have a nice day.
I hate both candidates. I am a firm believer we need a binding "none of the above" on the ballot.

And I have an extremely hard time believing anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together thinks either of these candidates is a good honest person.

Mark III
09-08-2016, 08:22 AM
See above post, same questions for you.

Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It is the first time in 76 years that paper has endorsed a Democrat for president.

They know that Clinton is a "liar". I'm pretty sure they know more about it than you do.

They said Donald Trump is completely unqualified to be president.

They said Clinton is qualified.

Let me ask you a question, do you think Donald Trump is an honest person?

Subdermal
09-08-2016, 08:30 AM
Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It is the first time in 76 years that paper has endorsed a Democrat for president.

They know that Clinton is a "liar". I'm pretty sure they know more about it than you do.

They said Donald Trump is completely unqualified to be president.

They said Clinton is qualified.

Let me ask you a question, do you think Donald Trump is an honest person?

Or, the truth is that the Establishment has had its way with dim bulbs for years, and you're still extremely easy to manipulate.

Who owns the Dallas Morning News? What are their ties?

This isn't R v D. It's Establishment vs Outsider; Globalism vs Nationalism.

Keep playing checkers, Mark.

del
09-08-2016, 08:45 AM
Or, the truth is that the Establishment has had its way with dim bulbs for years, and you're still extremely easy to manipulate.

Who owns the Dallas Morning News? What are their ties?

This isn't R v D. It's Establishment vs Outsider; Globalism vs Nationalism.

Keep playing checkers, Mark.

you misspelled we're.

tighten up, derpie

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 08:56 AM
Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It is the first time in 76 years that paper has endorsed a Democrat for president.

They know that Clinton is a "liar". I'm pretty sure they know more about it than you do.

They said Donald Trump is completely unqualified to be president.

They said Clinton is qualified.

Let me ask you a question, do you think Donald Trump is an honest person?

Yes I do. I would trust Donald Trump 10 times faster than I would Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What are Hillary Rodham Clinton's qualifications to be president? Because she was a former first lady? Because she was a do nothing Senator? Because she was a failed Secretary of State? Because she couldn't remember after 30 years in Washington that classified information was not to be easily assessed by everyone?

Trump has built an empire and honestly earned more wealth than Hillary Rodham Clinton and her philandering husband have managed to steal in the last 30 years.

Finally, the woman could be anointed by God himself as the most intelligent woman in the room and I still would not vote for her because I don't believe in socialism and big government.

JVV
09-08-2016, 09:17 AM
This topic isn't about Trump. Except that that Democratic party lucked out by the GOP choosing Trump.

This topic is about the Democratic thought process when they didn't have any idea that they would be lucky enough to face Trump.

Back before anyone seriously dreamed Trump could be the nominee, the Democratic party looked at all the people in their party and decided that it didn't matter how bad her negatives were with the majority of the nation. They were going to go with her. The majority of the state parties, the big donors, and all those superdelegates all lined up behind her.

What was the thought process there which made them say that they didn't care how bad her image was with the majority of the country -- they were going to put their eggs in her basket anyway?


Don't use Trump as an excuse for that. He was not considered a credible contender then. Democrats have lucked out with him, but he's not why they made that choice to embrace someone with such high negatives.

What was their reason for saying that it didn't matter that their candidate -- if she won -- would be the most disliked incoming president in memory?

Crepitus
09-08-2016, 10:24 AM
This topic isn't about Trump. Except that that Democratic party lucked out by the GOP choosing Trump.

This topic is about the Democratic thought process when they didn't have any idea that they would be lucky enough to face Trump.

Back before anyone seriously dreamed Trump could be the nominee, the Democratic party looked at all the people in their party and decided that it didn't matter how bad her negatives were with the majority of the nation. They were going to go with her. The majority of the state parties, the big donors, and all those superdelegates all lined up behind her.

What was the thought process there which made them say that they didn't care how bad her image was with the majority of the country -- they were going to put their eggs in her basket anyway?


Don't use Trump as an excuse for that. He was not considered a credible contender then. Democrats have lucked out with him, but he's not why they made that choice to embrace someone with such high negatives.

What was their reason for saying that it didn't matter that their candidate -- if she won -- would be the most disliked incoming president in memory?
She was never supposed to win. This should have been a walkover for the republicans. We almost always hand the presidency off to the other party after 8 years. All this was supposed to be was a bone thrown to a party loyalist. She she was supposed to be the first female nominee of a major political party nothing more.

FindersKeepers
09-08-2016, 10:33 AM
She was never supposed to win. This should have been a walkover for the republicans. We almost always hand the presidency off to the other party after 8 years. All this was supposed to be was a bone thrown to a party loyalist. She she was supposed to be the first female nominee of a major political party nothing more.

Phooey.

The DNC has been grooming Hillary since 2012, when she stepped down at the State Department. In fact, the DNC made it so apparent that she was their pick, only one democrat had the courage to stay the course -- Sanders. And, of course, there's the little matter of Wasserman pulling every string she could to position Hillary at the top of the pack.

Perhaps you were dreaming.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 10:34 AM
The GOP on the other hand supports Trump 100%

Except those in the GOP that don't.

Still 100% is 100%. That can't be changed. It's only a figure of speech, much like every one of the Donald's comments.

The individuals who make up the GOP are not unified behind Trump. It's not even close.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 10:39 AM
She was never supposed to win. This should have been a walkover for the republicans. We almost always hand the presidency off to the other party after 8 years. All this was supposed to be was a bone thrown to a party loyalist. She she was supposed to be the first female nominee of a major political party nothing more.

The media has been planning to cheerlead for her ever since they were forced to abandon her in 2008.

That being said, this was another election that was supposedly impossible for the Republicans to lose. They lost it once again nominating someone who does not represent the conservative movement.

Now the media can make amends for 2008.

Crepitus
09-08-2016, 12:13 PM
Phooey.

The DNC has been grooming Hillary since 2012, when she stepped down at the State Department. In fact, the DNC made it so apparent that she was their pick, only one democrat had the courage to stay the course -- Sanders. And, of course, there's the little matter of Wasserman pulling every string she could to position Hillary at the top of the pack.

Perhaps you were dreaming.

Believe what you want. Had the republicans picked anyone but Trump this wouldn't be any sort of contest.

AZ Jim
09-08-2016, 12:52 PM
In what way is Hillary Rodham Clinton more honest or more intelligent than Donald Trump? Point out to us please what real accomplishments Hillary Rodham Clinton has earned based on her own performance. Point out to us exactly where Donald Trump's dishonest actions have risen to the level we see with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And finally, tell us why instead of responding in a civilized manner you turn to belittling the poster.Oh sure write a detailed book for you so you can deny it all? You must be nutz! That effort even if it changed your "mind" not even close to logical trade off.

JVV
09-08-2016, 01:51 PM
So no one wants to address the question of why Democrats thought it would be safe to go with someone with such high negatives in the eyes of the majority of the country?

(Or if someone did, I apologize for missing it among the posts which didn't.)


There wasn't much chance for Hillary to grow, perception-wise. People had mostly formed their opinions of her with 25 years in the public spotlight. Odds were there wouldn't be a lot of people changing their minds in the heat of an election.

But the party said, "It doesn't matter that she is unliked ... we still think it's smart to run her ....."



I'll go back now and reread to see if someone addressed that.

Subdermal
09-08-2016, 01:56 PM
you misspelled we're.

tighten up, derpie

I suppose I should have automatically included you in the 'easily manipulated' category, along with Mark III. Good catch.

Peter1469
09-08-2016, 02:03 PM
In what way do you think I think you support Clinton?

I mean, after all just because the thread was about Clinton and Trump and you chimed in negatively about Trump a reasonable person would assume you were a supporter.

You, by the way, are an arrogant SOB.

Have a nice day.

Warning: Please don’t call members names.

del
09-08-2016, 02:05 PM
Believe what you want. Had the republicans picked anyone but Trump this wouldn't be any sort of contest.

^
this

Common Sense
09-08-2016, 02:09 PM
So no one wants to address the question of why Democrats thought it would be safe to go with someone with such high negatives in the eyes of the majority of the country?

(Or if someone did, I apologize for missing it among the posts which didn't.)


There wasn't much chance for Hillary to grow, perception-wise. People had mostly formed their opinions of her with 25 years in the public spotlight. Odds were there wouldn't be a lot of people changing their minds in the heat of an election.

But the party said, "It doesn't matter that she is unliked ... we still think it's smart to run her ....."



I'll go back now and reread to see if someone addressed that.

I think Dems picked her because she's experienced and by all accounts she was the most likely to be elected. As it stands now she is the odds on favourite. I don't know who of the other GOP candidates could have beat her.

I think some of what people say about her is true. She is a professional politician. However, I do feel many have been duped into buying the GOP propaganda about her. I honestly think its sad to watch somewhat reasonable people buy some of the ridiculous things she's accused of.

MrMike
09-08-2016, 02:44 PM
Suppose that all the negative things that people think about Hillary are unfounded.

It is still a fact that people believe all those negative things about Hillary.

For that reason, I am baffled whenever I try to understand why Democrats decided that it didn't matter how much people dislike Hillary.

"It's not fair that people dislike Hillary, so we are going to nominate her for president anyway." Is that what they were thinking?


That just doesn't make sense. It's a denial of reality.


Democrats couldn't know that Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate one of the very few possibilities that people hate worse than Hillary. So what were they thinking when they put practically all of their eggs in her basket in the pre-primary season?


Yep...

We are faced with two main choices in 2016 that leave plenty to be desired. I'm still not sure how this happened.

Bethere
09-08-2016, 02:50 PM
Phooey.

The DNC has been grooming Hillary since 2012, when she stepped down at the State Department. In fact, the DNC made it so apparent that she was their pick, only one democrat had the courage to stay the course -- Sanders. And, of course, there's the little matter of Wasserman pulling every string she could to position Hillary at the top of the pack.

Perhaps you were dreaming.

Very good! Except we've been grooming her since 2008.

We groomed her because we knew she was our only potential candidate who could survive the Republican attack machine.

Hillary will be the next president because she is a survivor. We picked her because she is a survivor.

Pretty smart, huh?

FindersKeepers
09-08-2016, 02:53 PM
Very good! Except we've been grooming her since 2008.

We groomed her because we knew she was our only potential candidate who could survive the Republican attack machine.

Hillary will be the next president because she is a survivor. We picked her because she is a survivor.

Pretty smart, huh?


It might be politically smart -- but she's not a smart choice for leader of the greatest nation in the world -- not by a long shot. Then again, neither is Trump, and nor were Obama or GWB.

Bethere
09-08-2016, 02:55 PM
It might be politically smart -- but she's not a smart choice for leader of the greatest nation in the world -- not by a long shot. Then again, neither is Trump, and nor were Obama or GWB.

Sadly, libertarians and green party members won't have any say in this matter.

Who made the smart choices?

JVV
09-08-2016, 03:08 PM
I think Dems picked her because she's experienced and by all accounts she was the most likely to be elected. As it stands now she is the odds on favourite. I don't know who of the other GOP candidates could have beat her.

I think some of what people say about her is true. She is a professional politician. However, I do feel many have been duped into buying the GOP propaganda about her. I honestly think its sad to watch somewhat reasonable people buy some of the ridiculous things she's accused of.


I realize that must be it. But it is still baffling. It's the kind of situation where it seems they should have actively recruited some other viable talent.

And it doesn't send a good message to the public.

"We know that if you're not in the 30% of the nation who calls themselves Democrats, you probably don't like her, and even if you're a Democrat there's a good chance you don't trust her, but we're putting all our collective might behind her -- early in the primary process -- before you have any say -- because ___________"

And it's hard to fill in that blank with a reason which doesn't sound dismissive of the people.


Dismissive in a way which is jarring when you think about the name of the party being "Democrat".


So I'm back to the question of how could the party think it's a good idea to protect that attitude of "We know what's best and we don't care what you think".

Common Sense
09-08-2016, 03:12 PM
I realize that must be it. But it is still baffling. It's the kind of situation where it seems they should have actively recruited some other viable talent.

And it doesn't send a good message to the public.

"We know that if you're not in the 30% of the nation who calls themselves Democrats, you probably don't like her, and even if you're a Democrat there's a good chance you don't trust her, but we're putting all our collective might behind her -- early in the primary process -- before you have any say -- because ___________"

And it's hard to fill in that blank with a reason which doesn't sound dismissive of the people.


Dismissive in a way which is jarring when you think about the name of the party being "Democrat".


So I'm back to the question of how could the party think it's a good idea to protect that attitude of "We know what's best and we don't care what you think".

It doesn't send a good message to the public who already wont vote for her and who have bought the propaganda.

I think the Dems realized they had two choices, Sanders or Clinton. They realized that Sanders had virtually no chance of getting elected. The US isn't ready to become a country like Canada. So they chose the candidate that could get elected.

"We know what's best and we don't care what you think". is a presumption and probably not necessarily what they actually thought or did.

JVV
09-08-2016, 03:24 PM
It doesn't send a good message to the public who already wont vote for her and who have bought the propaganda.

I think the Dems realized they had two choices, Sanders or Clinton. They realized that Sanders had virtually no chance of getting elected. The US isn't ready to become a country like Canada. So they chose the candidate that could get elected.

"We know what's best and we don't care what you think". is a presumption and probably not necessarily what they actually thought or did.


I'm talking about before it was down to Clinton and Sanders.

And Democrats needed to plan to win a lot of those people who felt negative about Clinton. They needed to make up ground with some of the 70% who aren't part of the Democratic party.

But early in the process ... when there was still time to find someone who didn't have record high negatives ... they decided to throw the might of the party machinery behind Hillary.


The fact that Bernie did as well as he did shows that there was a need for a wider open race where more people were encouraged to enter, but instead we got all those state victory committees and superdelegates and the DNC itself locking step around that candidate and shutting out competition.



I opened this thread allowing the possibility that the propaganda was false. But true or false, the fact was that the majority of the nation had a negative opinion about her. And even a sizable part of those who identify as Democrats thought she was dishonest. And the email situation was hanging over her head.

And the party decided that none of that mattered and they went all in for Hillary when there was still time to get another candidate.



She was such a bad candidate that Sanders made her sweat in spite of the party machinery pushing her 20% of the way to the finish line before the primaries started.

And she's such a bad candidate that Trump is leading in a CNN poll. (WTF?)


And Democrats saw the weaknesses which would make this possible -- well in advance -- in time to make a different choice ....


Yet they said, we don't care that she is disliked. We don't care that she hasn't won an election in a state which wasn't deep, deep blue. We're going for it. And they gave us a candidate who will probably win, yes, but who is still struggling to break away from Donald Freaking Trump in the week after Labor Day.



There is something seriously wrong with the thought processes of the Democratic party.


Obviously there is something wrong with the Republican party. But there's something profoundly wrong with the Democratic party that they, with eyes wide open, gave us a candidate that Trump could get anywhere near.

Peter1469
09-08-2016, 04:15 PM
She is a crook. She is incredibly incompetent. A habitual liar.

And the left groomed her.... :shocked:

JVV
09-08-2016, 04:25 PM
She is a crook. She is incredibly incompetent. A habitual liar.

And the left groomed her.... :shocked:


Suppose she is not a crook.

Suppose she just has a reputation for being a crook.

That should still have made the Democratic strategists say, "We need to find someone else while there is still time."


But they didn't do that. They did the opposite. They actively worked toward making a viable competition less likely. Sanders sure surprised them by making her worry about closing the deal. Which just shows how terrible their choice was in picking her so firmly and so early and trying to avoid a real competition.

PolWatch
09-08-2016, 04:38 PM
IMO: 2016 was supposed to be the year of the GOP. The usual history of swapping parties every 8 years usually means swapping the Oval Office between parties. Hillary was the throw away candidate....her candidacy was her reward for years of party loyalty. The dems had no one else groomed for the candidacy (they were saving them for 2024). What happened? Donald Trump turned the election into American Idol: Presidential Edition and we got bad & badder as the major party candidates.

valley ranch
09-08-2016, 06:44 PM
Quote: Suppose she is not a crook.

Does anyone suppose she isn't a crook? Crook isn't a proper word for what she is.

The Democratic party, I don't think decided on a Clinton, The Clinton has a lot of Money and Money buys a lot of support, power and influence. Many want access to government backing, power and tax money. A person in office who can make you a judge, confiscate private property for your project, steer tax monies to your project or industry or bring a government agency down on a competitor.
A person in office who will give you these things for an agreed upon donation to THE FOUNDATION, well there are people who would like to have a liar and a~I guess crook is a good word, there are people who would love to have her in the drivers seat.

valley ranch
09-08-2016, 06:55 PM
Donald trump is not a choice between a Lying Clinton and someone not quite as bad. Donald Trump is a good business man and can run our business, better ,I think, than any one in sight of the chair.

I know the wise politicians, the left press, actors and pretenders, some non American countries, this and that lives matter and the like say they will like us even less if we choose the president, but I think we should do it anyway. He is more successful and intelligent than most of those who tell us we don't or can't like him. To hell with them, they're voting for Clinton one way or another anyway.

JVV
09-08-2016, 09:32 PM
Quote: Suppose she is not a crook.

Does anyone suppose she isn't a crook? Crook isn't a proper word for what she is.

The Democratic party, I don't think decided on a Clinton, The Clinton has a lot of Money and Money buys a lot of support, power and influence. Many want access to government backing, power and tax money. A person in office who can make you a judge, confiscate private property for your project, steer tax monies to your project or industry or bring a government agency down on a competitor.
A person in office who will give you these things for an agreed upon donation to THE FOUNDATION, well there are people who would like to have a liar and a~I guess crook is a good word, there are people who would love to have her in the drivers seat.


And of course there are the people in the mid-level political positions who know that they're safest by joining with the power players.

valley ranch
09-08-2016, 10:41 PM
Yes, there's something in what you're saying. Clintons have a pretty good grip on the party. I think stronger than before the last election. AND there are many that think caractor doesn't mean a thing, if the snake waves, like a carrot on a stick, something they long for.

PolWatch
09-08-2016, 11:43 PM
Yes, there's something in what you're saying. Clintons have a pretty good grip on the party. I think stronger than before the last election. AND there are many that think caractor doesn't mean a thing, if the snake waves, like a carrot on a stick, something they long for.

Character doesn't seem to matter anymore. Look at the behavior of the repubs if you have any doubt they ALL are only concerned with winning. The same people who are calling Clinton a crook are holding their nose to support Trump. I don't think there is any noticeable difference in either major party. I don't remember who said it but one of the political pundits said this election was a choice between death by heart attack or by cancer...take yer choice. They are both miserable choices.

Don
09-09-2016, 12:08 AM
Hillary Clinton is a grifter and Bill Clinton is a flim flam man. They are both expert cons running their games on their marks. Wasserman was their shill. They are like the old Gypsy families rolling through the towns of unsuspecting people. The only difference is that the authorities used to actually try to stop them not aide and abet them.