Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's just non-stop sophistry.

I know. I really wish you'd stop.

Cute, but unlike you, I have actually demonstrated your sophistry. It stands unaddressed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

What else doesn't mean something else?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

It's perhaps better to say that people are uninspired by her or just don't care about her. Remember that most of her election events had crowds in the hundreds while Trump was drawing in thousands and most of her surrogates brought in bigger numbers to see them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

What else doesn't mean something else?

Speak another falsehood and I can tell you.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

It's perhaps better to say that people are uninspired by her or just don't care about her.

Once again, your own source proves that's false. 77% evidently ARE inspired by her and care about her.

Remember that most of her election events had crowds in the hundreds

But, I thought her mere presence in a state was all the was required to prevent her loss of Wisconsin!

And, you know, the fact that she won would tend to argue against crowds being an issue.

while Trump was drawing in thousands

Of racists who had never been allowed out of their doublewide gimp-cages and encouraged to publicly get their hate on about niggers and kykes and cunts etc.,etc., etc.

 

[Elixir]

Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats fell 11 points to 76% just after the election; it has not improved significantly in the ensuing months, and currently stands at 77%..

Source? So... a third of registered voters are democrats, and Hillary has support from 77% of them... that won't win any elections, especially while Cheato enjoys near unanimous support among republitards.

From 9/2018:

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Favourability against Trump doesn't mean someone is not hated. Party loyalty within the Democrats to Hillary doesn't meant he general public doesn't hate her either.

What else doesn't mean something else?

Speak another falsehood and I can tell you.

Oh, ok!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of racists who had never been allowed out of their doublewide gimp-cages and encouraged to publicly get their hate on about niggers and kykes and cunts etc.,etc., etc.

Who cares? They voted in the places which mattered. Clinton's supporters didn't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Once again, your own source proves that's false. 77% evidently ARE inspired by her and care about her.

I thought we just established that isn't true. Your 77% number doesn't apply to the general public, which Tom was talking about, and even if it did, it wasn't measuring being inspired by or caring about her. It merely measured "Approval" which could mean one step above meh, and that's only with Democrats. And that's your own figure that you raised that I haven't bothered to verify.

And, you know, the fact that she won would tend to argue against crowds being an issue.

Tom just told you it was more a matter of voting against Trump than voting for Hillary. A baked potato could win a popularity contest against Trump. Had people actually really like her, perhaps she would have actually, y'know, won the election and become your President.

 

[Elixir]

Look at it, Koy:
View attachment 18804

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats fell 11 points to 76% just after the election; it has not improved significantly in the ensuing months, and currently stands at 77%..

Source?

Tom Sawyer's.

So... a third of registered voters are democrats and Hillary has support from 77% of them

Plus about a third of Independents according to Tom's source. So now break it down by incorporating this from Pew:

In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.

So, 77% of 33% that identify as Dems and 1/3 of 37% of Independents are pro-Hillary and together Dems and Dem-leaning Indies make up 50% of the total registered voters.

I found this from CNN on September 10 to hopefully correspond somewhat to the same timeframe:

Among independents, the drop [for Trump approval] has been sharper, from 47% approval last month to 31% now.

So what's 31% (pro-Trump Indie respondents) out of 37% (total number of registered Indies)?

And how many Republicans approve of Trump? Here's CNN's methodology. On page 16 we find that, of the Republican respondents, 82% approved, while 15% disapproved and an additional 2% weren't sure (with an error ratio of a whopping 7.3; jeebus) and of the Indies, 31% approved, while 59% disapproved and 10% didn't know (with a 6.1 error rate).

So, 82% of 26% (=pro-Trump total registered Republicans) plus 31% of 37% (=pro-Trump total registered Indies)? And then that percentage against 42% total registered voters.

There are some 200,000,000 total registered voters, so if we assume for the sake of argument that every registered voter miraculously voted, how many votes (based on final percentages) would Hillary get today vs. Trump?

Who wants to do all that fun math as there is waaaay too much ghost THC to plow through in my skull?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, 77% of 33% that identify as Dems and 1/3 of 37% of Independents are pro-Hillary and together Dems and Dem-leaning Indies make up 50% of the total registered voters.

Supported her generally, or supported her as against Trump? The latter would be saying very little. The former would be better for you, but still possibly not great depending on what "supporting her" means. Is it a mere approval rating yea or neigh? One step above meh? Or is it a ringing endorsement?

There are some 200,000,000 total registered voters, so if we assume for the sake of argument that every registered voter miraculously voted, how many votes (based on final percentages) would Hillary get today vs. Trump?

It would all change once the campaigns got started.

And it should be kept in mind that the opinions of the registered voters matters in elections, but doesn't necessarily indicate the mood or opinion of the general public when voting turnout is as low as it is in the USA.

I am still amazed by that BTW. After the Bush Election and then the Obama and Trump elections, and all the vitriol back and forth and rabid partisanship, voter turn out is still so low. Does it mean most of America just doesn't give a fuck? It was around 49% in these midterms, which is being touted as remarkably high, but is less than half of eligible voters. Most of the vote was vacant.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Of racists who had never been allowed out of their doublewide gimp-cages and encouraged to publicly get their hate on about niggers and kykes and cunts etc.,etc., etc.

Who cares?

You did, when you made the comment about her crowds compared to Trump's, as if that were any indication of how the election would turn out. The facts prove it wasn't. Hillary was conclusively more popular than Trump at the ballot box (and among those who, for non-partisan reasons, didn't vote). That's a fully demonstrable fact.

They voted in the places which mattered.

The places that mattered are the "battleground states." Clinton won half, Trump won the other half, but exactly three of those he won were by margins so small as to be impossible for any candidate to do anything about (legitimately at least) and for reasons that evidently had more to do with racism and white fright (combined with an unprecedented FBI late October surprise) than anything inherent to Hillary.

How could ANY Dem candidate have overcome latent racism? Or prepare for the devastating effect of the fucking FBI dropping a political atomic bomb two weeks before the election; a bomb that had been carefully and conclusively dismantled by Hillary's team to the point where had the election been held before Comey dropped it, all indications were that Clinton would have easily beat Trump.

You can't just hand wave away the actual facts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Look at it, Koy:
View attachment 18804

I did Elixir. That includes Republicans and right-leaning Independents and therefore not indicative of how an election works. You only look at the Democrats and the left-leaning Independents.

The breakdown is provided (by me) above, but my math skills when it comes to percentages of percentages are poor so someone else would have to process it.

 

[Elixir]

View attachment 18804

36% approval rating is lower than Cheato's.
Let it go, dude. You are indulging in wishful thinking, and doing a lot of acrobatics to prop it up.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How could ANY Dem candidate have overcome latent racism?

Obama, an actual black guy, did it twice. What was your point again?

Or prepare for the devastating effect of the fucking FBI dropping a political atomic bomb two weeks before the election; a bomb that had been carefully and conclusively dismantled by Hillary's team to the point where had the election been held before Comey dropped it, all indications were that Clinton would have easily beat Trump.

First, she could have handled that by not using the unsecured server in the first place. Sure, others have done it before and since. Sure, the Republicans played it for all its worth. That doesn't mean she couldn't have avoided it by not using said unsecured server.

Second, she was estimated by all indications to easily beat Trump even with the this political atomic bomb (as you call it). She was so shocked that she lost that she didn't have a concession speech ready. The media were equally shocked. Almost everybody was shocked. There was a serious failure here on Hillary's part. She was expected to win by an absolute landslide and Trump was supposed to be a joke.

You can't just hand wave away the actual facts.

Exactly. You can't. Trump is your President. Congratulations. And according to Elixer's numbers above, he's more popular right now than Hillary. That's shocking.

 

[angelo]

Most Americans recognized that Trump was a blowhard, an adulterer and a narcissist long before election day. That wasn't the problem. The problem what that most Americans settled for voting on one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections. IMO, the least deplorable scumbag won but that doesn't mean they aren't still a deplorable scumbag....or continue to be one. Trump's attack of the media after the attempted bombings is just one example.

Donald Trump only got elected on his policies of populism and anti-globalism and nothing more.

Hillary would have been an effective globalist leader and nothing more. She would have done exactly what the globalist corporate cabal wanted from her and she would have probably even fixed her hair to look pretty doing it. She might have skimmed some more money off her foundation but other than that would have basically stayed out of trouble.

But that just isn't what the people wanted this time around. It was a simple as that.

Agreed. They also didn't want a continuation of the Obama Administration's policies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?
She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

She's a politician. Some of this is to be expected. But it's not more than any other politician, is it? She seems pretty middle of the road.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah. So all Republicans have to do is spread rumors, lies, innuendos, phony investigations and hatred against any Democratic nominee and that person is eliminated from contention. Just like they did agains, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and every other person the Democrats nominate.

It's the thirty years part that you don't seem to understand. Give your opponent that much advance notice, and they'll generally be able to squash you, even with a weaker force. Right now I believe that if one could force a referendum on Trump vs either Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid or virtually any other Dem, Trump would go down in flames. But vs Hillary? Probably not.

I'm thinking of the 30 years. A person who manages to hang on for 30 years clearly know what they're doing. I'd pick an old goat over a fresh chicken any day. I mean... Trump turned out to be a disaster. 30 years matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at it, Koy:
View attachment 18804

I still think it's because she's a woman. Not for anything she's actually done. USA is a very Christian nation, and Christianity, (if you take all of it seriously) is more hostile to women than Islam. I suspect it's that simple.

 

[angelo]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

What part of "thirty years of accumulated rumors, lies, innuendo, phony investigations and republican fomentation of hatred" don't you understand?
She is likely the very worst person on the entire north american continent to nominate for any national position.

Yet like Sylvester the cat or the Coyote chasing the Roadrunner , she never gives up. She's a proven liar and the people know it, and has stated she won't run again, assuring she'll run again in 2020 and lose again.