By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 05 August 2016
Edit Thread
Azuren said:
Soundwave said:

Again this is bullshit, he didn't get the votes. Period. End of story. 

There's nothing worse than a sore loser. 

If Hilary could manipulate votes like that here's a genius theory ... why didn't she do it in 2008?

That was much, much closer, she lost to Obama by basically a hair. This contest? Wasn't even close. Even if she somehow manipulated "half" that, she still wins by like 2 million. 

Winning is winning. You don't give the guy who came in second at the Olympics a gold too because he was only a second behind. 

She lost in 2008 and won in 2016 ... fair is fair. Quite frankly good on her for sticking with it, that loss in 2008 would've crushed many people. 

Shows character to pick yourself up and after that, dust yourself off, and try again. 

No,if she had character, then there wouldn't be an issue with her being the presidential candidate.

 

Instead we have a person who won due to tricky rules not allowing the large bulk of supporters for the opposing candidate vote (which you keep discounting like it's not a big thing, when it it really is a pretty big deal that they couldn't vote). We have a presidential elect who has already been confirmed guilty of a fairly serious crime (despite the actual ramifications being next to nothing that we're aware of), yet isn't being charged because  ¯_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

We've got someone who is being voted for because she's perceived as the lesser of two evils. And dude? That's fucking disgusting. We're looking forward to a pretty fucking shitty 4-8 years right now because the DNC tried their damndest to sabotage one of their candidates, and you're sitting here defending it. Opinions like yours are absolutely cancerous to the election process, because you're so concerned with picking the lesser of two evils that you never stop to think "Why don't we just pick a good one?"

She had more votes than Bernie Sanders. That's the bottom line. A lot more at that. 

Bernie Sanders supporters should more maganimous in defeat, Hilary supporters had every reason to act like sore losers after 2008, they didn't. They swallowed their pride and got behind candidate Obama. Take the loss, character is revealed in people not when they win but how they conduct themselves in a loss. 

I don't see Hilary Clinton as evil to begin with, that's part of a smear campaign against her because she's not a charismastic candidate. She has a shrill voice. 

But being a 67 year old woman who isn't the most savvy person on setting up an email server doesn't make you "evil". It's hilarious that Trump can do 20954949 different gaffes and still be seen as "about par" with Clinton who's never been shown to intentionally hurt someone and her big scandal is that she was careless with an email server. It's a laughable double standard actually. 

Republicans throw shade at the Clintons because they are scared shit less of the Clintons, they tried to impeach him and thought for sure the American people would side with them because he got a blow job (oh noes!) but instead Clinton's job approval rating went even higher. They can't stand the Clintons because despite all their huffing and puffing about balancing the budget, Clinton is the only one who's ever actually done it. So they've been bracing for a Hilary Clinton presidential run for 20 years. 

And the best they got on her is a bunch of fucking emails, the overwhelming majority of which weren't even classified at the time. On the other end of the aisle you have a candidate retweeted Neo-Nazis and openly petitions Russia to hack US servers and tells other countries to go get nuclear weapons. Like what the fuck is the perspective here even? These are supposed to be equivalent? Because they're not even close.