Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Donna Brazile Thought of Replacing Clinton

  1. Top | #41
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Ffs, give it a fucking rest. She won the popular vote, which is the ONLY measure of preference of the American people that exists. Period. Absolutely nothing will ever change that fact.
    So what? That doesn't mean who became president. Hillary failed. You all suffer for her failure. Full stop.

    Which means, he has no mandate; he did not earn the office; there is no way to strategize winning the EC, while losing the popular vote
    I'm sure he didn't aim to lose the popular vote, but he did campaign where he knew it mattered. He did hit Hillary where she failed to campaign. He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one. He did play identity politics, a game Republicans win, and easily got her to play it with him.

    She based her campaign on the pillars of Status Quo, Self Entitlement, Identity Politics, and Empty Platitudes. And she ran as not-Trump. Trump was such a horrible candidate that she almost won anyway. Had she switched around any one of these pillars she likely would have won. She worked hard for her loss. Obama was "Hope. Change. Yes, We Can". Hillary was "No Magical Ponies. No we can't", which was especially highlighted in contrast to Sanders' policies in the primary and Trump's "Make America Great Again" in the general. Hillary chose another status quo milk toast politician as her running mate instead of Warren or Sanders. Obama was "No red or blue, but the United States of America". Hillary was "Basket of Deplorables". Hillary was "I'm With Her" instead of "She's with us".

    most importantly, he cheated by committing treasonous acts.
    Nothing has been proved tying him to any treasonous acts despite a years long inquiry into it. You may need to let that one go.

    He will go down in history as the worst President to have yet existed.
    Possibly yes. And you'll have Hillary to thank for it.

    But what should happen and what does happen rarely coincide in politics, but that doesn't change the fact that voter preference was overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.
    Apparently not in big enough numbers where it mattered.

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    So what?
    Piercing counter argument.

    I'm sure he didn't aim to lose the popular vote
    Then you've just conceded that it can't be a measure of superior strategy as much as it is pure dumb luck.

    but he did campaign where he knew it mattered.
    Where he hoped it mattered and it did NOT. A less than 1% voting differential could literally be caused by a fucking sneeze, NOT by any kind of strategy.

    Or a massive Russian influence warfare that targeted exactly the states he ended up winning by less than 1%.

    You are conveniently looking through hindsight at what was at the time apparently nothing more than a move of last minute desperation (though, again, it lines up perfectly with exactly what the Russians were doing and where).

    Regardless, even with the knowledge of clandestine Russian interference, there would still be no possible way for him to strategize a sure win, so looking at the after math--especially when it's statistically nonexistent--can't possible be attributed to anything other than external forces and not anything that reflects on the candidate himself.

    The implication is that he somehow knew the winds of change, but that's clearly not the case as .07% does in no way represent a wind of change or the pulse of American ideology.

    The ONLY measure of that is the overall total (aka, "popular") vote and that was for Hillary by millions.

    You're looking at a sliver and calling it a forest. It simply is pure sophistry.

    He did hit Hillary where she failed to campaign.
    Yes you and many others have repeated that sophistry many times and it is always disproven by the fact that both candidates campaigned extensively in Pennsylvania, but Clinton lost and Trump out-campaigned Clinton in Colorado--which had the largest gap of any state where the candidates spent their time--and it remained firmly blue, with Clinton winning it by about the same margin that Obama won it in 2012.

    So why the fuck would her not being in one State matter when it didn't matter in others?

    He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one.
    All of which is irrelevant. The measure of the PREFERENCE OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE is what matters in regard to the political ideological "pulse" of the largest percentages of Americans.

    There is no way around that. It is the superior measurement, regardless of the fact that he's president by a technicality.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 07-16-2019 at 06:02 PM.

  3. Top | #43
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Then you've just conceded that it can't be a measure of superior strategy as much as it is pure dumb luck.
    Most of what Trump does is dumb. So what? Hillary lost the election to this dumb guy, and now you all have to call him Mr. President.

    Regardless, even with the knowledge of clandestine Russian interference, there would still be no possible way for him to strategize a sure win, so looking at the after math--especially when it's statistically nonexistent--can't possible be attributed to anything other than external forces and not anything that reflects on the candidate himself.
    He was a BAD candidate, not a good one. His approval numbers were very low. But so were hers. She managed to lose the election to him.

    The implication is that he somehow knew the winds of change
    Who alleged that? He was a faux populist pushing a message of Make America Great Again. And he was against politics as usual and he was brash and people took that as him being less phony (even though he was and is phony). He's always been a dumb egomaniac. Hillary lost to this dumb egomaniac.

    You're looking at a sliver and calling it a forest. It simply is pure sophistry.
    That's exactly what you are doing. You have President Donald Trump, not President Hillary Clinton, but you are trying to spin it that she won and didn't fail.

    He did bring a populous message while she brought an establishment one.
    All of which is irrelevant. The measure of the PREFERENCE OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE is what matters in regard to the political ideological "pulse" of the largest percentages of Americans.
    No. What matters is who wins. That's how you got the current president and his policies being implemented. Congratulations.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Hillary lost the election to this dumb guy
    Wrong. Again. She won the election, but due to a technicality we have to call Trump Mr. President.

    Once again you are trying to imply that it was something either she did wrong or he did right when in fact it was neither.

    What matters is who wins.
    Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.

  5. Top | #45
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    What matters is who wins.
    Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.
    Caring who wins isn't sophistry. It is what actually matters for who will be the President what policy will be implemented. Its the real world. Sophistry is your spinning in circles whining that Hillary got the popular vote as if that's what matters in your electoral college system.

  6. Top | #46
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JP
    What matters is who wins.
    Thank you for perfectly demonstrating the idiotic binary sophistry in regard to "winning" of what I had thought was just American stupidity, but evidently is much more universal.
    Caring who wins isn't sophistry.
    Thinking that there can be only one winner is. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote proves that the largest percentage of Americans wanted her as the President and not Trump. Due to an archaic technicality and .07%--a percentage that does not statistically even exist it's so small--Trump was made President instead.

    Thus, it is possible to win and still lose and lose and still win.

    It is what actually matters for who will be the President what policy will be implemented.
    No shit. And is the sky blue too?

    Per usual, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point and your derail a total waste of everyone's time. If you'll recall, I had posted (in response to Bosch's post):

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.
    And you derailed with:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    He won. She lost. Her being the Democrat nominee and failing is why Donald Trump is your president.
    Which is just flat out wrong as we've both just established.

  7. Top | #47
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Per usual, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point and your derail a total waste of everyone's time. If you'll recall, I had posted (in response to Bosch's post):

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.
    And you derailed with:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    He won. She lost. Her being the Democrat nominee and failing is why Donald Trump is your president.
    Which is just flat out wrong as we've both just established.
    Your comment was a derail to begin with. And what I wrote is factual. She lost the election. Had somebody else run instead of her for the Democrats against Trump in the general, they could have won, and Trump may not be your President. Had she run a better campaign, she herself could have won too. She failed. Her failure brought you your current President. Congratulations.

  8. Top | #48
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Your comment was a derail to begin with.
    Horseshit.

    Bosch wrote:

    I think that anyone who claims that the dems should have won in 2016 really doesn't understand the American system. First off, Trump beat 12 or 13 very qualified and deeply funded republicans before he turned to Clinton. Secondly, you don't understand that the system is stacked against the democrats. The republicans can win with millions of fewer voters. The republicans are incredibly united. Trump got incredible free press. Russian bots. White males have substantially more power than any other group. I can go on and on.
    I added to it with:

    You don't need to. Hillary won the vote, which conclusively proves she was the preferred choice and therefore the better of the two candidates. Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.
    It was, at best, an addendum to his comments.

    And what I wrote is factual.
    No, what you wrote was deliberately omitting a key qualifying component.To whit:

    She lost the election.
    She did not lose the election. The eleciont is the popular vote. What she lost was the Presidency. That happened due to a technicality that had no bearing on whether or not she was the more popular/preferred candidate.

    Had somebody else run instead of her for the Democrats against Trump in the general, they could have won
    Again, she did win the election, she just lost the Presidency.

    Had she run a better campaign
    False. Her campaign--once again--was determined to be the better, more preferred one than Trump's as measured by the only measurement that exists; the popular vote.

    She failed.
    False.

    Her failure brought you your current President.
    False again. A combination of Russian cyber warfare, the Comey letter (itself prompted by Russian cyber warfare) and pure dumb 0.7% luck--as well as millions of hate filled pig assed ignoramuses--brought us our current President. Plus a Russian fueled bitterly divisive civil war primary certainly didn't help.

  9. Top | #49
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    She failed.
    False.
    She failed and couldn't accept that she lost. She didn't imagine she could lose. She didn't even have a concession speech prepared for the possibility. And then she went on a non-apology book tour to soothe her conscience, after her failure gave you President Trump.

    Her failure brought you your current President.
    False again. A combination of Russian cyber warfare, the Comey letter (itself prompted by Russian cyber warfare) and pure dumb 0.7% luck--as well as millions of hate filled pig assed ignoramuses--brought us our current President. Plus a Russian fueled bitterly divisive civil war primary certainly didn't help.
    Hillary, is that you?

  10. Top | #50
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    She didn't imagine she could lose.
    Because she didn't. By at least 2.5 million votes. It doesn't matter how many times you falsey equivocate winning the popular vote with losing the presidency. All you're doing is proving my point that people of low intelligence can't fathom the concept of a non-binary proposition.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-14-2016, 09:16 PM
  2. Would Teabaggers Support DONNA Trump?
    By Medicine Man in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-16-2016, 02:11 PM
  3. Cat In The Box - Thought Experiments
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 07-27-2016, 07:35 AM
  4. It will be Clinton v. Trump, and Clinton will win
    By SLD in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:10 PM
  5. You thought arguments here got bad?
    By braces_for_impact in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-15-2015, 12:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •