Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a chance.
Trump would have won by much bigger margins.
It was an anti establishment year.
Probably the hammer hitting the nail on the head here...
Hillary was too much establishment carrying too much baggage with not enough charisma to beat someone like Trump who was loaded with the sort of charisma that earned him a fairly devout following, of those who were enamored with that sort of charisma, rhetoric and un-conventionalism. For me, however, just about everything about Trump in terms of what he seems to think, what he says and how he says it makes me think, "oh HELL no!"
Just because Trump is unconventional does not make him a good POTUS, good for America, and though there are about a third of Americans who might like Trump as POTUS, most Americans are not favorable about the man, what he seems to represent or his presidency so far.
Apparently you believe that misogyny is not a legitimate issue for women in this country and the world in general or that a prominent female in politics should not bring the issue into focus. All I can say to that is that maybe YOU need to grow up a bit.
You don't think these are big problems?
More important is Hillary's long history of lying, pay-for-play politics, and mockery of women who accused her husband of assault or rape, and her recent history of selling the power of her office to enrich herself and her husband, it is saying that gender trumps decency. It speaks volumes about Clinton supporters.
It is hard to imagine a more immature and primitive stance than that of Democrats who argue how important was to support Hillary Clinton because of gender.
I think misogyny played a role in the 2008 primaries, but this time around it was her running on Obama's policies, Benghazi, questions about the Clinton Foundation, Wikileaks, her email scandal, and her health.
Benghazi and "Obama policy" are the only two that can and should be used against her, without it applying to Trump.
Trump had the sniffles several times in several of the debates so much so people on Twitter and City-Data thought he was coked up. So maybe his health should have been questioned too...
E-mail-gate and the DNC leak on Wikileaks both were put out by Russian hackers who MAY or MAY NOT have been paid off by Team Trump. We're still trying to find that out. Also the RNC was hacked too yet the data wasn't released...
The Clinton Foundation issues are issues I saw that could happen with Trump to. Then he names Lehman Bros directors, the former CEO of WWE and Betsy DeVos as cabinet picks and it proved every fear I had of the puppeteer replacing the puppets with itself.
I don't know if misogyny played a role or not BUT it is an underlying possibility. Honestly a big issue is the Clinton-Bush dynasty. People wanted change. Sadly they are getting it. I feared the change so I went with more of the same. Maybe I was the smart one in retrospect...
More important is Hillary's long history of lying, pay-for-play politics, and mockery of women who accused her husband of assault or rape, and her recent history of selling the power of her office to enrich herself and her husband, it is saying that gender trumps decency. It speaks volumes about Clinton supporters.
It is hard to imagine a more immature and primitive stance than that of Democrats who argue how important was to support Hillary Clinton because of gender.
That there are OTHER big problems does not mean that misogyny in this country and the world is not a problem. Sheesh!
I truly do not understand this lack of logic and reason that seems intent on denying one problem simply because there are others. This too, how ridiculous to insert the notion that my comments have anything to do with supporting Hillary "because of gender." What's wrong with you?
Benghazi and "Obama policy" are the only two that can and should be used against her, without it applying to Trump.
Trump had the sniffles several times in several of the debates so much so people on Twitter and City-Data thought he was coked up. So maybe his health should have been questioned too...
E-mail-gate and the DNC leak on Wikileaks both were put out by Russian hackers who MAY or MAY NOT have been paid off by Team Trump. We're still trying to find that out. Also the RNC was hacked too yet the data wasn't released...
The Clinton Foundation issues are issues I saw that could happen with Trump to. Then he names Lehman Bros directors, the former CEO of WWE and Betsy DeVos as cabinet picks and it proved every fear I had of the puppeteer replacing the puppets with itself.
I don't know if misogyny played a role or not BUT it is an underlying possibility. Honestly a big issue is the Clinton-Bush dynasty. People wanted change. Sadly they are getting it. I feared the change so I went with more of the same. Maybe I was the smart one in retrospect...
Anyone who thinks they can possibly put into one comment all the countless reasons that Obama/Hillary might be considered the better POTUS vs Trump, or vice versa, is biting off a bit more mental steak than they can intellectually chew if you ask me...
That there are OTHER big problems does not mean that misogyny in this country and the world is not a problem. Sheesh!
I truly do not understand this lack of logic and reason that seems intent on denying one problem simply because there are others. This too, how ridiculous to insert the notion that my comments have anything to do with supporting Hillary "because of gender." What's wrong with you?
Why are you taking my post so personal? The fact of the matter is, ...
Hillary's long history of lying, pay-for-play politics, and mockery of women who accused her husband of assault or rape, and her recent history of selling the power of her office to enrich herself and her husband, it is saying that gender trumps decency. It speaks volumes about Clinton supporters.
It is hard to imagine a more immature and primitive stance than that of Democrats who argue how important was to support Hillary Clinton because of gender.
Apparently you believe that misogyny is not a legitimate issue for women in this country and the world in general or that a prominent female in politics should not bring the issue into focus. All I can say to that is that maybe YOU need to grow up a bit.
Maybe you need to grow up a bit and have some reading comprehension. Where did I say misogyny does not exist. All I said is that Clinton should not throw words like misogyny was a cause of her defeat without any proof it played a part in it. There were many legitimate factors that caused her to lose the elections that had nothing to do with her being a female.
I did not think much of Trump too and actually voted third party. And should a viable candidate like Gabbard be chosen next I will gladly vote for her. So don't make people voting against her being labeled misogynists, just like she labeled Trump supporters as deplorable.
She lost because she was a lousy candidate. Nothing more.
Anyone who thinks they can possibly put into one comment all the countless reasons that Obama/Hillary might be considered the better POTUS vs Trump, or vice versa, is biting off a bit more mental steak than they can intellectually chew if you ask me...
Remember when Jamie Foxx said "President Barack Obama might be known as "Our Lord and Savior," and people cheered. Remember the Obama songs, the Obama flag, the tattoo's etc. Well many viewed Obama in the same messianic way. That thinking about any man or women with power is very dangerous. And no one should view Obama, Hillary or Trump in that naive way.
Politicians have faults. Politicians are not Gods. People on both sides of the isle need to come down to earth.
Why are you taking my post so personal? The fact of the matter is, ...
Hillary's long history of lying, pay-for-play politics, and mockery of women who accused her husband of assault or rape, and her recent history of selling the power of her office to enrich herself and her husband, it is saying that gender trumps decency. It speaks volumes about Clinton supporters.
It is hard to imagine a more immature and primitive stance than that of Democrats who argue how important was to support Hillary Clinton because of gender.
I don't understand you. What do you mean "personal?" I am responding to what you write. This forum is about as impersonal as one can be. I am just expressing dismay at your comment(s) is all...
I am not defending Hillary's record or baggage. Understand? I have not made the argument you want to make the focus here.
Review my comments, try to make sense of them, respond to what I have commented, then maybe you will be making better sense. If instead you just want to talk to yourself, you don't need me or my comments to do it!
Again, what's wrong with you? Nothing personal, just curious how it is anyone can stray so far afield from a comment they are quoting and responding to...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
