A Little Pony wrote: » How can that happen? You have a congress in America, checks and balances. Trump is NOT going to be Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. The sooner people realize this the better. It was embarrassing seeing such comparisons during the campaign. It was as if people lived in an alternate universe and yet Trump battered her. The racist card didn't work.
Walter Bishop wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » I am happy that Russia and the US will have a better relationship now and people said he would be the warmonger. Besides carrying the fight to ISIS, I doubt you will see the US invading any country or involved in more wars. It would be nice if the US could have a better relationship with Russia by diplomatic means rather than electing someone who is going to bring the US closer to the way Russia is governed - a corrupt authoritarian police state ruled by a gangster.
A Little Pony wrote: » I am happy that Russia and the US will have a better relationship now and people said he would be the warmonger. Besides carrying the fight to ISIS, I doubt you will see the US invading any country or involved in more wars.
Manic Moran wrote: » DukeOfTheSharp wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » Such tripe. You blamed everything but her when she lost only because of her. No one else. Blaming Sanders? Get a grip. Oh so we're just ignoring cause-and-effect? How actions or inactions can make or break a whole election? She didn't lose because of her, she won the popular vote, so in reality, how is this on her when she literally received the most votes? Elections are won and lost by the people voting, the reality is that Sanders voters were caught up in the man, not the politics, so much so that they refused to back her even though he did, eventually, support her. Nuance is required when it comes down to something like this; it's really easy to blame a singular person, but systemic issues, poor running mates, idiotic voters who refuse to see sense and a plethora of other reasons go into a candidates win or loss. Due to the electoral college (which Trump wanted abolished in 2012, by the way) being an easily manipulated system where current senate parties can reshape districts to better suit their political influence, the deck was already stacked against her. Despite that, Texas turned into a blue state this time around. Texas. Hillary did something right on her end, so the only real issue are the people who failed to come out and vote, and those who supported Sanders who jumped ship to Trump...and yes, that's a thing that happened. So while you try to simplify something so complex, I'll be here actually thinking about this in terms of cause-and-effect, with an actual analysis and not some weirdly defensive comment. 2.1% of votes went to a third party in Florida, now expand that to every other state where the margin between Trump and Hillary was under 1% and you've got a pretty damning picture of the voter spread. America's political system is a mess, and in reality, Hillary did really well despite the insane circumstances. But there are reasons for her loss outside your apparent dislike of her, things that need to be analysed and remembered for every country to take heed of. I agree with the very last line of this. But I take some exception some other parts. Folks who disagree with you are "idiotic voters who refuse to see sense?" What happened to difference of opinion? Texas did not go blue. it was 53-43. If those third party voters were forced to vote for one of the main two, libertarians tend to side with the Republican, Green to Democrats. It would have increased the Republican margin of victory, not decreased it.
DukeOfTheSharp wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » Such tripe. You blamed everything but her when she lost only because of her. No one else. Blaming Sanders? Get a grip. Oh so we're just ignoring cause-and-effect? How actions or inactions can make or break a whole election? She didn't lose because of her, she won the popular vote, so in reality, how is this on her when she literally received the most votes? Elections are won and lost by the people voting, the reality is that Sanders voters were caught up in the man, not the politics, so much so that they refused to back her even though he did, eventually, support her. Nuance is required when it comes down to something like this; it's really easy to blame a singular person, but systemic issues, poor running mates, idiotic voters who refuse to see sense and a plethora of other reasons go into a candidates win or loss. Due to the electoral college (which Trump wanted abolished in 2012, by the way) being an easily manipulated system where current senate parties can reshape districts to better suit their political influence, the deck was already stacked against her. Despite that, Texas turned into a blue state this time around. Texas. Hillary did something right on her end, so the only real issue are the people who failed to come out and vote, and those who supported Sanders who jumped ship to Trump...and yes, that's a thing that happened. So while you try to simplify something so complex, I'll be here actually thinking about this in terms of cause-and-effect, with an actual analysis and not some weirdly defensive comment. 2.1% of votes went to a third party in Florida, now expand that to every other state where the margin between Trump and Hillary was under 1% and you've got a pretty damning picture of the voter spread. America's political system is a mess, and in reality, Hillary did really well despite the insane circumstances. But there are reasons for her loss outside your apparent dislike of her, things that need to be analysed and remembered for every country to take heed of.
Deleted User wrote: » Such tripe. You blamed everything but her when she lost only because of her. No one else. Blaming Sanders? Get a grip.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » Media turned Trump into this racist anti LGBT monster and a huge amount of the population believed it. They have a lot to answer for .
learn_more wrote: » CNN are reporting anti-trump rallies in several cities. It's not being picked up on SKY or BBC. It's not like it's not happening, CNN are broadcasting live video of such.
ebbsy wrote: » Hank Scorpio wrote: » One of Trumps racist voters Hillary and her media corruption did a good job of brainwashing so many vulnerable/gullible people. +1 Media and polling companies all bought off and she still got beat out the gate. She is a horrific cheat.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » One of Trumps racist voters Hillary and her media corruption did a good job of brainwashing so many vulnerable/gullible people.
lawlolawl wrote: » We'll never know because she lost. Horribly. To Donald Trump.
DukeOfTheSharp wrote: » For those who don't think it'll effect Ireland; he plans to abolish the J1 program for colleges, so Irish students will have even less of an ability to get employment and experience. But sure, they're only the youth, who cares about them? Not to mention the fact that when he lowers corporate tax, Irish-based companies will jump ship, as they always do, to a cheaper prospect.
learn_more wrote: » And 'who were they'. Another loaded statement designed to give the impression you know what the hell you are talking about.
Bongalongherb wrote: » I suppose most folk started to see the Clintons for who they really were.
DukeOfTheSharp wrote: » Oh so we're just ignoring cause-and-effect? How actions or inactions can make or break a whole election? ..... analysed and remembered for every country to take heed of.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Simply being Hillary Clinton is by far the biggest reason that she didn't win.
Deleted User wrote: » Nonsense? I just want her supporters to explain how it dropped steadily during the election.
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » Clinton didn't do much wrong. She simply didn't do what was right to win this election.
learn_more wrote: » This is just total nonsense. When was her 'trustworthiness' ever been called into question before she ran for president. Imagine if the media went after every senators 'trustworthiness'. We'd never hear the end of it.
TheOven wrote: » But it's just millennials, it's still ok to hate them.
Deleted User wrote: » Explain her abysmal trustworthiness ratings. I'm interested in seeing how you'll tie it in with what you've posted so far.
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » Clinton didn't do much wrong. She simply didn't do what was right to win this election. And I think, in the grand scheme of things, she will be happier she didn't, when you look at what Trump had to do to win i.e. the division he promoted in his speeches. The hate. She was held to a higher standard by the electorate. And she held herself to a higher standard. If she wanted to win, she probably needed to sink to Trump's level of rhetoric. And no doubt if she had, she would have been pilloried even more so than already by all sides. Too many people wanted Trump. Let's not forget, he also fended off a whole host of reasonably capable Republican candidates too. It's not Hillary's fault she also lost to him. The country wanted Trump. They got him.
AllGunsBlazing wrote: » Mostly white, middle-class millennials who have been raised to think that the sun shines from their arse. Think Veruca Salt from the Willy Wonka movie.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
