Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Simply being Hillary Clinton is by far the biggest reason that she didn't win.
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.
Bongalongherb wrote: » I suppose most folk started to see the Clintons for who they really were.
learn_more wrote: » And 'who were they'. Another loaded statement designed to give the impression you know what the hell you are talking about.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » One of Trumps racist voters Hillary and her media corruption did a good job of brainwashing so many vulnerable/gullible people.
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.
lawlolawl wrote: » We'll never know because she lost. Horribly. To Donald Trump.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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: » 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.
A Little Pony wrote: » The racist card didn't work.
DukeOfTheSharp wrote: » It also says a lot about Sanders supporters and Sanders himself. For all the bluster about change, he was really only a cult of personality candidate; once he was out, people lost interest, voted for Trump or voted for a third party candidate. Clinton got the crap end of the stick, was scrutinized unfairly, more than Trump was, and The low voter turnout was awful for her too, and I think that in general it was the Sanders delusion that caused so much trouble.
People don't care about policies, they care about the person, Sanders talked a big game, but never had any substance, Clinton did her homework and was qualified, but failed to reach her goal because of Sanders, electoral college and her gender. It's sad to say, but the idea of 'people power' only goes so far once you remove the personality in front of the ideology. It's the paradox of the political system, it's all flash, and any substance is lost to those blinded by it.
beach_walker wrote: » ...Did I say that? Yeah right on. Lemme guess you were totally on board with Iona complaining about the "homophobic" accusations on RTE and getting their pay-out. I mean they were totally entitled because of their taxes spent right? Giving a career platform to "celebs" such as (business man) Rory o'Neil on the basis of saying dumb things is wrong, right? Oh.
lawlolawl wrote: » Mostly because reasonable people actually listened to his comments and realized that there isn't really anything racist about not wanting illegal immigrants and jihadists allowed into the country.
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » I wonder do they understand the difference between being respectful of the democratic system which provided the result, while simultaneously disagreeing vehemently with the result? Because you sure as hell don't seem to.
tritium wrote: » Yeah respect is calling anyone who voted for the other side idiots, racists, xenophobes and in onea lovely case on here c*nts. Respect is demanding that the electoral system that was fine when it workes for your side be changed because the numbers dont work for you anymore. Respect is rioti g bwcause ypu didnt get the outcome you wanted Very respectful of the system that. Ive been clear enough in previous posts that im not a fan of either candidate. However the hypocricy of some clinton supporters post the elction is quite stunning. They spent half the campaign telling everyone how mean and bitter Trump voters were. Telling us how trump voters were racist and sexist. Now theyve lost the election w hat we get from is them a mean bitter whine about how those white men are all such idiots and c*nts and bigots to vote for Trump- pure racism and sexism that they cant even see as it sits in front of their faces. Because of course it was only redneck white sexist racists who voted for him. No one smart could have right? Rather than try to understand the wave of outrage that swept a candidate like Trump into the white house, a group who in many cases are experts on being outraged have decided they know best and theres really no issue to be looked at here. Its just the bottom feeders, nothing to see here, lets move on, democracy just didnt work! Bull**** to that, democracy actually worked as intended here and if no one in the DNC is prepared ro actually try to understand why they lost and the mistakes, miscalculations and ethically dumb moves they made then theyre likely to be facing the exact same problem in four years time
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
