Don't trust her and hate her, at least recognize....

[Starbuck1975]

She would have been a good president. She's smart, capable, and hard working.

And gosh darnit, people like her...wait

 

[GagHalfrunt]

She's been smart enough to stay out of jail, so I'll give her credit for a high degree of criminal cunning. But being able to recite short sound bites written by her staff is not all that impressive.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure what is more vomit inducing. Clinton being a great president or Obama being an inspiring leader.

Not sure why either one would be unless you’re weirdly emotionally invested in hating them.

All you need to do is compare how the government functioned when the Democrats were last in charge of all elected parts vs. now. The difference in leadership and competence is just staggering. Even if you didn’t agree with their policy goals the Democrats at least knew how to run a country.

 

[fskimospy]

And gosh darnit, people like her...wait

Meh, I don’t care so much about that. She was certainly the best choice out of those available. Sanders lacked sufficient competence and the Republicans outside of Kasich were either ideologically insane (most of them) or literally insane (Trump).

 

[alien42]

And gosh darnit, people like her...wait

more people liked her than trump, just look at the popular vote.

 

[Starbuck1975]

She was certainly the best choice out of those available.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[Starbuck1975]

more people liked her than trump, just look at the popular vote.

I look at the popular vote as irrelevant. No one cares how many field goals you score when the game is soccer.

 

[fskimospy]

I look at the popular vote as irrelevant. No one cares how many field goals you score when the game is soccer.

It’s not really irrelevant at all, it’s just a quirk of our system. The research indicates campaigns change almost nothing so it’s not like if it had been a popular vote contest Trump could have won by campaigning differently.

 

[brandonbull]

Says the Trump supporter. Oh, the irony

Clinton is the typical slick car salesman where they have some overpriced turd that want to sell you in order to pay for their new Mercedes. Don't give them the keys to your existing car to have it "checked out" because it will be hours before you can leave. You know you going to get screwed with all sleight of hand tricks, the "extras", and the shitty financing. Trump is the typical drunk guy that talks a lot of crap but a least you can relate to what they are saying.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

She did?

She insists on it for interviews.

 

[fskimospy]

Clinton is the typical slick car salesman where they have some overpriced turd that want to sell you in order to pay for their new Mercedes. Don't give them the keys to your existing car to have it "checked out" because it will be hours before you can leave. You know you going to get screwed with all sleight of hand tricks, the "extras", and the shitty financing. Trump is the typical drunk guy that talks a lot of crap but a least you can relate to what they are saying.

You’re saying Clinton is a scam artist compared to Trump, a person who literally just had to pay $25 million in damages to students he defrauded while running a scam university.

The total disconnect from reality here is unbelievable.

 

[brandonbull]

more people liked her than trump, just look at the popular vote.

Since neither gained a majority of the popular vote, not really relevant.

 

[gregoryvg]

Yep, because most people (let alone presidential candidates) who have been trained for public speaking have a real problem being able to talk shop for five minutes without being carefully prepared for it first.

Believe what you want to believe.

I think it's reasonable to assume that she knew the questions that would be asked by Seth. But true as well that she could probably have "talked shop" as you say for a few minutes in a lightweight, friendly interview as this was.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

more people liked her than trump, just look at the popular vote.

A good deal disliked both. Look at disfavorability ratings. I understand why Biden didn't run with his family situation and from a newsweek article he does as well. He'd have beaten Trump like a baby seal.

 

[mikeymikec]

Trump is the typical drunk guy that talks a lot of crap but a least you can relate to what they are saying.

It really doesn't surprise me that you can relate better to a drunk, incoherent person than a sober, coherent one.

But in case you needed reminding, we're talking about presidential candidates not drinking buddies. The ability to speak in a coherent and sober manner is important for the former, not the latter.

 

[gregoryvg]

It’s not really irrelevant at all, it’s just a quirk of our system. The research indicates campaigns change almost nothing so it’s not like if it had been a popular vote contest Trump could have won by campaigning differently.

It's not a "quirk" of our system. It is our system.

 

[gregoryvg]

It really doesn't surprise me that you can relate to a drunk, incoherent person than a sober, coherent one.

But in case you needed reminding, we're talking about presidential candidates not drinking buddies. The ability to speak in a coherent and sober manner is important for the former, not the latter.

I don't know what the OP was getting at, but obviously it was just an analogy. Pres. Trump doesn't talk, walk or act like a politician. He is insensitive and does things with no regard to how it will affect his re-election chances. It's why some love him. He would be really dangerous and effective if he could channel all that a little better.

 

[alien42]

It's not a "quirk" of our system. It is our system.

and it's broken, twice in my lifetime the popular vote winner didn't win the election. it needs to be fixed.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Just got this in email, yea it is a silly chain email, but there is some truth in it:

Gee, I still haven't figured out why Hillary lost...

Was it the Russian's? Or was it wikileaks? Or was it Podesta? Or Comey? Or was it a sexual predator husband? Or her Chief of staff's husband, Wiener’s, immoral pictures? Was it supeona vilolation? Or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation? Or was it the congressional lies? Or was it the Bengazi lies? Or was it pay for play? Or was it travelgate scandal? Or was it whitewater scandal? Or the cattlegate scandal? Or the ‘TrooperGate' scandal?
Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea's apartment bought with foundation money? Or Comey's investigation? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation? Or was it stealing debate questions with help from Donna Brazile? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails? Was it her using a private email server while sending and receiving classified information? Was it the Seth Rich murder? Was it selling our uranium to Putin and the Russians?
Was it calling half the USA deplorable? Was it the underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders? Was it the Vince Foster murder? The Jennifer Flowers assault? The Jennifer Flowers settlement? The Paula Jones lawsuit? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement? Maybe the accusations of Juanita Broaddrick, claiming Bill Clinton raped her? Or the fact that her husband has acted much like Harvey Weinstein in the past? The lie about taking on sniper fire? The impeachment? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the state dept? The 10 million her husband took for the pardon of Marc Rich?

 

[dank69]

Not sure what is more vomit inducing. Clinton being a great president or Obama being an inspiring leader.

A: Your stupid fucking face.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not a "quirk" of our system. It is our system.

No, it's a quirk of our system. Quirks are 'peculiar aspects' of something, and reliance on a group of unaccountable electors that don't have to vote the way the citizens of their state or country vote instead of just counting the votes is certainly peculiar. (not to mention undemocratic and foolish, policy-wise)

There's a reason why no other developed country elects their chief executive this way. People long ago realized it is stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Just got this in email, yea it is a silly chain email, but there is some truth in it:

Gee, I still haven't figured out why Hillary lost...

Was it the Russian's? Or was it wikileaks? Or was it Podesta? Or Comey? Or was it a sexual predator husband? Or her Chief of staff's husband, Wiener’s, immoral pictures? Was it supeona vilolation? Or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation? Or was it the congressional lies? Or was it the Bengazi lies? Or was it pay for play? Or was it travelgate scandal? Or was it whitewater scandal? Or the cattlegate scandal? Or the ‘TrooperGate' scandal?
Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea's apartment bought with foundation money? Or Comey's investigation? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation? Or was it stealing debate questions with help from Donna Brazile? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails? Was it her using a private email server while sending and receiving classified information? Was it the Seth Rich murder? Was it selling our uranium to Putin and the Russians?
Was it calling half the USA deplorable? Was it the underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders? Was it the Vince Foster murder? The Jennifer Flowers assault? The Jennifer Flowers settlement? The Paula Jones lawsuit? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement? Maybe the accusations of Juanita Broaddrick, claiming Bill Clinton raped her? Or the fact that her husband has acted much like Harvey Weinstein in the past? The lie about taking on sniper fire? The impeachment? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the state dept? The 10 million her husband took for the pardon of Marc Rich?

You're right, it was probably her murder of Vince Foster. You cracked the case!

Thanks for posting that though, it's been a while since I've seen a legit batshit crazy right wing chain email.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't know what the OP was getting at, but obviously it was just an analogy. Pres. Trump doesn't talk, walk or act like a politician. He is insensitive and does things with no regard to how it will affect his re-election chances. It's why some love him. He would be really dangerous and effective if he could channel all that a little better.

I think we need to draw a distinction between leader and politician. Anyone can be a politician, case in point Trump. He holds an office and he was elected by partisans.

A leader can be someone who is in your community, doing things under the radar by impacting others to cooperate in a (hopefully) beneficial goal. Trump is an incompetent politician, but he's a leader merely by virtue of holding the Office. Any individual quality we've mentioned in this thread is valuable, but like a good recipe proper ingredients must be present in proper proportions.

In America our menu consists of very few items with questionable ingredients being far too often used. That's the results of our system and our people.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It’s not really irrelevant at all, it’s just a quirk of our system. The research indicates campaigns change almost nothing so it’s not like if it had been a popular vote contest Trump could have won by campaigning differently.

It is not a quirk, it is how our democracy works. CA and NY may have a lot of people, but they still are just two of 50. Our electoral college is kind of like why we have a House of Reps and a Senate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You're right, it was probably her murder of Vince Foster. You cracked the case!

Thanks for posting that though, it's been a while since I've seen a legit batshit crazy right wing chain email.

I get them regularly, and most are indeed bat shit crazy. This one is spot on, though. There is no case to crack, Clinton was an awful candidate and terrible for America. You picked the Vince Foster part out while ignoring the rest of the very many points it makes, some more relevant than others.