StarOcean said: I just want her out of the limelight so the Democrats can find a better person for 2020. Can Republicans also run in 2020? I dont know the rules of second term

shikamaru317 said: StarOcean said: I just want her out of the limelight so the Democrats can find a better person for 2020. Can Republicans also run in 2020? I dont know the rules of second term Yes, Trump gets to run for re-election in 2020 if he chooses to. If he doesn't choose to, the Republican party will elect another candidate. Only a handful of Presidents chose not to run for a 2nd term however.

Lets all hope and pray that Trump has figured out he is in over his head and both D's and R's get respectable candidates next cycle.

I agree on points 3, 4, and 5

@bolded she was one of the most competent politicians perhaps.  That is the only way I can even partially agree with the bolded statement. She was a competent politician (smart enough not to leave Bill when he was screwing around on her and lying to the county about it "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Monica Lewinsky.") and knew she needed Bill's clout to further her own ambitions of power. She was a competent politician in a time when enough people were sick and tired of politicians, enough so that the jackass Trump gets elected.

In case anyone was still unsure about why Hillary lost:

"Hillary Clinton speaks" (CBS)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tteLMfFDCb4

Folks, this is a woman who - before the election even happened - decided to buy a 2nd home RIGHT NEXT DOOR to house additional staff because she assumed the White House was already all hers.

And on top of that, she has no regrets about preemptively calling roughly half the country a "basket of deplorables" at the height of the campaign when she was cruising in the polls and Trump was drowning in negative coverage.

For the rest of her life she's gonna whine and gripe to anyone who will listen about how her rightful place in the White House was stolen from her the same way Gollum gripes and broods about his "precious" being stolen.

I wonder how can people call Hillary one of the Smartest and competent people to ever run for Office when she lost against a Newbie and an Orange idiot? lol

Clearly she may be smart from a policy point of view but she is lacking as a leader and therefore is not the most qualified person to ever run.

I don't believe that for a second.

Besides, i'm sure that even if he had, the money the US is losing to debt interest rates rising from the uncertainty he brings is alot worse. Threat of war with NK, of government shutdown, useless wall spending, drop on manpower from xenophobic immigration policies and internal political struggle. ALOT worse.

There is nothing you are gaining with that guy in power, i garantee that. All he is doing is destroying the US from the inside. Just as Putin hoped he did.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-electoral-college-cnntv/index.html

Ah man. She's really grasping for straws. Lol.

View on YouTube

What's not on your list, and what Hillary refuses to acknowledge is that she was both lazy and over-entitled throughout her campaign.  I don't know if you meant to umbrella that into your #5, but I needs to be spelled out clearly, highlighted, and acknowledged.  Because, it is a huge reason for her losing. 

She didn't make a single campaign stop in Wisconsin, a state that played a huge part in her losing the election.  Why should a person in Wisconsin vote for a candidate who doesn't even acknowledge them, but instead just assumes they will vote for her because she believes she's entitled to it?  Obama called her out on this immediately after the election, and it's true.  Hillary lost a lot of the Obama-Democrats, because she made ZERO effort to court their votes.  Another example, Obama pointed out that he spent 87 days campaigning in Iowa (which he won both times) while Hillary stopped there 3 times (and lost the state).  She just assumed that everyone who came out and voted for Obama would automatically vote for her as well.

It's as bad as Rudy Guiliani's campaign strategy in 2008 where he spent so much focus on campaigning in Florida, and ignored other states, which were going to be voting before Florida, because he hoped that his lead in Florida would carry him through those other states without actually having to campaign there, and also believing that a subsequent win in Florida would also give him the momentum necessary to win the nomination.  It was a ridiculously flawed strategy.  The states voting before Florida did not vote for him, because he did not bother to campaign there.  Which then led him to lose Florida, the only state he was concentrating on, because Florida voters saw him finishing in 6th place in the other primaries. 

Point is, you actually have to go out and meet with the voting public and give them a reason to vote for you.  If you don't bother to actually make the effort to make a single trip to an entire state during a campaign season, why should those people make the effort to leave their house and vote for you on election day?  

Hillary Clinton has, and continues to blame everyone but herself.  Meanwhile, she is one of the biggest reasons for her own defeat.  Also, the DNC by aiding in her push past Bernie in the Democrat Primary exacerbated and inflated her already massive sense of entitlement.  So, the corruption of her own party needs to be acknowledged as well.  When else do you remember the Chair of a politcal party having to resign the very week of their Convention due to proven corruption like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

He makes alot of good points about Hillary. 

Let me stake out the unpopular position and defend Hillary Clinton.

In this new book we're talking about, Clinton concedes that she made many mistakes (like failing to visit certain states and of course retaining a private email server for convenience while in the White House), but also says that she ultimately still believes that circumstances outside her control determined the basic outcome of the election, and especially the infamous last-minute FBI letter. I think she's right about that! I mean the counter-argument I see to Clinton's claim that the FBI letter played a decisive role in the outcome is that "Well, it's still her fault because if she had been more responsible with her emails, she wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place." Well no, she wouldn't have, but saying that that makes the Republican-controlled FBI's partisan actions her fault is kind of like saying of a rape survivor that "Well she shouldn't have been drinking, so the rape is her fault." Lots of people think that way, but it's not actually true!

More compellingly, if voters were thinking about the candidates in a non-gendered way then there's no way that Hillary Clinton's email "scandal" compared to Donald Trump's corruption issues in magnitude. Even the FBI was forced to concede in public more than once that Clinton did nothing whatsoever illegal and that her email indiscretions had no victims at all. A victimless non-crime resulting from indiscretion is something that would rightly be called a mistake, not a scandal, and as such is hardly an issue of the same magnitude as Donald Trump running a fake university to bilk people out of their life savings or getting caught on video bragging about sexually assaulting women and then having a dozen of them come forward to confirm the validity of his recorded statements! But nevermind those minor indiscretions, Hillary Clinton broke protocol. PROTOCOL!!! You see how people (men in particular) held the two candidates to a different moral standard? The one can do whatever he wants and still win. The other had to be perfect and turned out to instead be human.

There is also the matter of experience that I relate to personally and consider a gendered matter. I'm hardly the only female on this Earth who has seen guys I train pass me up for promotions. That is something commonly known as the glass ceiling: where you are clearly better qualified, but you get passed by anyway because you have the wrong genitals. I REALLY think that that's the essence of what happened to Hillary Clinton both in the 2008 primaries and in this year's general election was made all the more pronounced and ridiculous. That a man with literally ZERO governing experience can win out over the candidate who has more experience and qualifications for the job than anyone who has ever run for the presidency I think definitely constitutes the glass ceiling. Or at least I think so anyway.

I really feel like this bullshit about it "being an anti-establishment year" is exactly that: bullshit! That's just the rhetorical excuse for the glass ceiling. It wouldn't have been an anti-establishment year if Joe Biden had entered and won the nomination, would it? He'd be president right now! Search your feelings: you know it to be true! 2016 was only "an anti-establishment year" because the Democratic nominee was a well-qualified woman and her opponent was a clearly unqualified man. It's the excuse for the man winning anyway just because he's a man.

That's all I'm saying.