Sexism and ageism, nice. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from you.
Hillary might not be a great presidential candidate, but she was a good senator and we need people like her in the US government. If people could shake out the Russian psyops telling them she is the devil they might realize she is better than 99% of the people we have in congress, both in terms of legislative competence and her general interest in the wellbeing of the country as a whole.
You might want to know a little more about her before backing her so adamantly.
You might want to know a little more about her before backing her so adamantly.
Fivr is a Russian wanna be troll. That says everything you need to know about where he is coming from
Are you triggered? Did I bring out your Hillary hate?
It's pretty ironic for a low-effort and low-competence troll like yourself to be calling people "russian trolls". At best, you are just a shitty american version of what you are claiming I am.
And yet you misunderstood a quote by her that is widely known and often cited as a prime example of how ham handed she could be when off script.Her voting record is excellent and she is one of the most throughly covered human beings on earth. She is arguably the most famous woman alive. I cannot believe that, of all possible arguments, you would argue that she is an "unknown".
Everybody knows how Hillary Rodham Clinton would have turned out as a president: Infinitely better than Donald Trump. Yet here we are.
And yet you attributed a pretty well known quote from her to Starbuck1975 and attempted to apply the label of Sexism and ageism to him. I say again, you might want to have a better understanding of someone you blindly support. (or at least admin you made a mistake) I never said she was unknown, I agree she has been vetted time and time again, and more shit falls to the floor. She ran and we had Trump, do you really want her running against him again?Her voting record is excellent and she is one of the most throughly covered human beings on earth. She is arguably the most famous woman alive. I cannot believe that, of all possible arguments, you would argue that she is an "unknown".
Everybody knows how Hillary Rodham Clinton would have turned out as a president: Infinitely better than Donald Trump. Yet here we are.
You beat me to it.And yet you misunderstood a quote by her that is widely known and often cited as a prime example of how ham handed she could be when off script.
Nate Silver gave Trump a better chance to win than did any other poll analyst last year. I'm also puzzled at why you think he isn't heard from anymore? 538.com continues unabated.
What exactly has Silver been saying? In September, he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump had a roughly 5-percent chance of beating his GOP rivals. In November, he explained that Trump’s national following was about as negligible as the share of Americans who believe the Apollo moon landing was faked. On Twitter, he compared Trump to the band Nickelback, which he described as being “[d]isliked by most, super popular with a few.” In a post titled “Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart,” Silver’s colleague Harry Enten wrote that Trump had a better chance of “playing in the NBA Finals” than winning the Republican nomination.
Multiple times over the past six months, Silver has reminded his readers that four years ago, daffy fly-by-nighters like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann led the GOP field at various points. Trump’s poll numbers, he wrote, would drop just like theirs had. In one August post, “Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom,” Silver actually laid out a schedule for the candidate’s inevitable collapse.
That collapse is running late. Here we are, a few days from the Iowa caucus, and Trump’s poll numbers haven’t gone down at all.
I bet the republican primary organizers wish their version of super delegates were as powerful as the in 2016 as the democratic ones were.
Or if, you know, America used runoff elections. Trump was nominated as a consequence of the mockery that is a 16 person field splitting up the early votes of normal candidates. Even the final two had to share the base against Trump... and that ensured that no normal person could win.
he has fivethirtyeight.com but as far as I know he hasn't been on news media recently but perhaps they'll bring him back for 2018 or 2020...
but after Trump why bother....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html
Remember that everyone was joking about Trump's chances but he rode the anti-establishment wave (and as stated in my previous post accomplished, to my dismay, what most pundits said he would not do)... I bet the republican primary organizers wish their version of super delegates were as powerful as the in 2016 as the democratic ones were.
_________
And yet you misunderstood a quote by her that is widely known and often cited as a prime example of how ham handed she could be when off script.
Let me say first. I'm a democrat. I've only voted democrat my whole life. I voted for Hillary. But it was a reluctant vote and I just do not like her.
I think the worst thing Democrats can do is run Hillary Clinton again. For anything, ever.
For the main reason, she is not swinging any voters. Anyone who doesn't already like Hillary Clinton is not going to suddenly start liking her. She is not charismatic or fun or entertaining in any way. She isn't likable. Yes, she is super qualified and would probably be a great president. But she will never get elected and we will just be putting another deplorable in office.
The presidential election is a popularity contest not anything else, like it used to be. The most interesting or likable or "coolest" candidate will always win, cuz many voters are stupid and go with their "gut" meaning they vote for who they think is most likable. Or like them. Hillary Clinton is not cool, or interesting or anything thats gonna win an election sadly.
Democrats should NOT run her again. Ever. Its a nearly instant republican win no matter WHO they run. Unless its a local race with lots of blue.
Skip her. We need someone new.
Your quote didn't appear to be a quote (usually people use quotation marks) and if it had not been, it would have been quite sexist and ageist. In the future, indicate that you are quoting somebody using normal english punctuation and I will refrain from confusing a quote with a statement made by you.
The next R President will skip his reign all together and push the button his first day in office. Thereby negating any of us ever having to put a positive spin on Trump. Small Blessing??? (If Trump doesn't do it off choose. He's a cruel man, it's a distinct possibility he will make us endure him until he's convinced we've paid enough then take us all out).That's the worrying thing. I can personally remember people being gobsmacked at Reagan becoming President. Then Dubya came along and suddenly the thought was 'well, at least Reagan had lived a full life and came to his political views through a lifetime of real experience, he wasn't a spoilt rich kid who got his opinions second-hand along with his wealth'.
But then Trump happens, and suddenly one remembers 'well, say what you will about GW, but he wasn't personally racist (I hear he got on well with Hispanics) and he clearly had some self-awareness and some level of smarts and wasn't _totally_ incapable of forming an intelligible sentence, even if he garbled the occasional word'
The question is, then, what is the next Republican President going to be like? Bearing in mind that extrapolation suggests they will cause people to remember positive things about Trump. It's going to be a combo of Beelzebub and Mr Bean, I guess. And then some.
And those aren't good things?Your constant trolling and random positions prove I am correct. You don't trigger me I just point out what you are, a failed troll not even good enoug to work in the troll factory. Not even dear Putin wants you.
LOL, worse than Trump? There's absolutely no way you believe that.And yet you misunderstood a quote by her that is widely known and often cited as a prime example of how ham handed she could be when off script.
Yet "I'm not Trump" should have won it for her.I believe every successful candidate for President needs to articulate a vision for how they will change the United States, in ten words or less.
Reagan: Morning in America, trickle down economics, Iran hostages, cheap oil (I think that's all right? Also note that an amorphous vision like "Morning in America" not only counts, it may be better than a concrete vision in terms of an election.)
Bush I: Read my lips: no new taxes (Note that these visions don't always have to come true. )
Clinton I don't remember very well. "Man from hope", which might not count, and "Health care for all", I think.
It seems like Bush II didn't have much to say, but neither did Gore. "lower taxes", I guess. Note that slogans like "Compassionate conservative" don't count if they don't provide a vision. But maybe that was a dog whistle for Christian conservatives? (I guess Gore had the "lockbox", which was roundly ridiculed.)
Obama: End the wars, Close Guantanamo, health care, energy independence
Trump: Make America great again, build the wall, bring jobs home
Hillary: I don't recall any significant message from her, except "Love Trumps Hate", I.e. "I'm not Trump". That's not a vision for how she would change the United States.