Discussion:
OT: The Facts About Hillary Clinton
(too old to reply)
Quadibloc
2017-04-10 18:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Came across this web page today:

https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/

which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been made in
this newsgroup.

John Savard
a425couple
2017-04-10 20:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been
made in this newsgroup.
John Savard
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking argument about the
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her narrative"
What a steaming pile of distortions!

I read in a recent post about similar claim,
Hillary Clinton lied: "Certainly misogyny played a role,
I mean that just has to be ,admitted"
Post by Quadibloc
No, it doesn't have to be admitted, because it's an *obvious* fucking
goddamned lie. Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because she's a woman.
She lost because she was a shitty candidate who inspired no one. Even
in the states she won, it wasn't because most voters supported her. It
was because a majority of those voters hated Trump.
Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal Ball & Obama
had to say about her in 2008.

MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton

"They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything
we don't know already."
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-10 23:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been
made in this newsgroup.
John Savard
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking argument about the
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her narrative"
What a steaming pile of distortions!
I read in a recent post about similar claim,
Hillary Clinton lied: "Certainly misogyny played a role,
I mean that just has to be ,admitted"
Post by Quadibloc
No, it doesn't have to be admitted, because it's an *obvious* fucking
goddamned lie.
Oh bullshit.
Post by a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because she's a woman.
She lost because she was a shitty candidate who inspired no one.
Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an impact on how easy it is for people to get votes...
Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because they want a reason not to vote for a woman.
Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative is a woman.
Post by a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
Even
in the states she won, it wasn't because most voters supported her. It
was because a majority of those voters hated Trump.
Funny that she had 62% approval rating as Secretary of State...
Post by a425couple
Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal Ball & Obama
had to say about her in 2008.
MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
"They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything
we don't know already."
and you don't think they were considering sexism as part of that assessment?
a425couple
2017-04-11 03:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@gmail.com> wrote in message...
- a425couple wrote:
-> "Quadibloc" <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message...
-> > Came across this web page today:
-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been
-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425couple
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking argument about the
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her narrative"
What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.

So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.

->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because she's a woman.
-> > She lost because she was a shitty candidate who inspired no one.

-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an impact on
-how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because they want
-a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative is a woman.

A good female candidate can win election just about anywhere.

Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3 times
against male opponents.
In 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state, S.C.

Heidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a male.
But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that state, N.D.

- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal Ball & Obama
- > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything
- > we don't know already."

- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part of that
assessment?

Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
Are you really thinking that donating, or working for one is
a lost cause?
I disagree.

I believe that Bernie Sanders understands it better than Susan Bardos.
"I came from the working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the
Democratic party can no longer talk to the people I came from."

Bernie Sanders Schools Clueless News Anchor On Why Hillary Clinton Lost
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 06:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been
-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425couple
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking argument about the
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her narrative"
What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.
So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.
The news media decides what they run with.
So do bloggers, facebook posters etc.
A breakdown of how much coverage announcements got would be interesting, I think the campaign probably became a bit negative with an emphasis on Trump is bad but I also don't know how much of that view is created by people choosing what to run with from everything she said.
Post by Quadibloc
->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because she's a woman.
-> > She lost because she was a shitty candidate who inspired no one.
-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an impact on
-how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because they want
-a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative is a woman.
A good female candidate can win election just about anywhere.
Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3 times
against male opponents.
That's a significantly different situation from winning the presidency, or an entire state in a presidential campaign.

Romney beat Obama 54% to 44% McCain beat Obama 53.9% to 44.9%. Trump beat Hillary 54% to 40.9%
Post by Quadibloc
In 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state, S.C.
Hoorah, how much weight was the GOP putting into hit campaigns on Nikki Haley?
How many millions did the GOP spend on investigations into attacks on an embassy where the GOP had reduced security funding?
Post by Quadibloc
Heidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a male.
But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that state, N.D.
According to Wikipedia the following is the list of Democrat candidates who have got electoral college votes from North Dakota
Grover Cleveland (1892, one of three votes), Woodrow Wilson (1912 and 1916), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 and 1936), and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)

McCain got 53% versus Obama, Rommney got 58% (Obama 38%)
Post by Quadibloc
- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal Ball & Obama
- > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything
- > we don't know already."
- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part of that
assessment?
Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
They're certainly starting at a major disadvantage.
Remember at the time Hillary had over a 60% approval rating as Secretary of State, by the election campaign she was being bagged hugely over it.
There's a lot of studies which show that any woman running for a higher position or promotion is judged harshly, she's either too soft to do the job or a bitch.
Post by Quadibloc
Are you really thinking that donating, or working for one is
a lost cause?
I disagree.
I believe that Bernie Sanders understands it better than Susan Bardos.
"I came from the working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the
Democratic party can no longer talk to the people I came from."
http://youtu.be/krP7rqYKHxs
Bernie Sanders Schools Clueless News Anchor On Why Hillary Clinton Lost
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-11 17:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 1:32:15 PM UTC+10, a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-cl
inton-why
-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
Post by Quadibloc
-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton
that have be
en
Post by Quadibloc
-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425couple
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking
argument about th
e
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her
narrative" What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.
So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.
The news media decides what they run with.
So do bloggers, facebook posters etc.
Now you're talking about so many people that isn't a consp[iracy so
much as it is public opinion. Which was not favorable to Hillary.
A breakdown of how much coverage announcements got would be
interesting, I think the campaign probably became a bit negative
with an emphasis on Trump is bad but I also don't know how much
of that view is created by people choosing what to run with from
everything she said.
Both candidates tried to play the press like a fiddle. The press
cheerfully let them, becauase it sold adverisging (which is the
_only_ thing they care about). Trump had more experience at it, and
thus more skill, and had the advantage of not giving a shit what
anybody thinks about him (making him the maverick underdog, which
Americans love).

More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few people
voted *for* either one.
Post by Quadibloc
->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because
she's a woman. -> > She lost because she was a shitty candidate
who inspired no one.
-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an impact
on -how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because they
want -a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative is a woman.
A good female candidate can win election just about anywhere.
Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3 times
against male opponents.
That's a significantly different situation from winning the
presidency, or an entire state in a presidential campaign.
There is, expecially in the south. In the south, it's even more
difficult for a woman to prevail over a man. So apparently, there
are other factors that are far more important.
Romney beat Obama 54% to 44% McCain beat Obama 53.9% to 44.9%.
Trump beat Hillary 54% to 40.9%
So "winning" the popular vote while losing the election is politics
as usual.
Post by Quadibloc
In 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state,
S.C.
Hoorah, how much weight was the GOP putting into hit campaigns
on Nikki Haley? How many millions did the GOP spend on
investigations into attacks on an embassy where the GOP had
reduced security funding?
If you're claiming that the GOP didn't care enough about winning
the governoship in _South Carolina_, you're making an extraordinary
claim, and need some extraordinary evidence to support it.
Otherwise, you just look like a whiny liberal who needs his diaper
changed.
Post by Quadibloc
Heidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a
male. But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that
state, N.D.
According to Wikipedia the following is the list of Democrat
candidates who have got electoral college votes from North
Dakota
Grover Cleveland (1892, one of three votes), Woodrow Wilson
(1912 and 1916), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 and 1936), and
Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
McCain got 53% versus Obama, Rommney got 58% (Obama 38%)
Making Heitkamp even more extraordinary, and providing even
stronger counterevidence to your claim that women have a
disadvantage in elections.
Post by Quadibloc
- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal
Ball & Obama - > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying
anything - > we don't know already."
- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part of
that assessment?
Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
They're certainly starting at a major disadvantage.
But not nearly as big a disadvantage as being Hillary Clinton.
Remember at the time Hillary had over a 60% approval rating as
Secretary of State,
That'd be the same polls that showed her willing the election in a
landslide? yeah, that's convincing.
by the election campaign she was being
bagged hugely over it. There's a lot of studies which show that
any woman running for a higher position or promotion is judged
harshly, she's either too soft to do the job or a bitch.
And yet, women win national level elections on a regular basis.
Were these "studies" done by the same people that said Clinton had
the election by a landslide?

Clinton lost becase as much as people hate Trump, they hate her
even more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 22:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 1:32:15 PM UTC+10, a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-cl
inton-why
-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
Post by Quadibloc
-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton
that have be
en
Post by Quadibloc
-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425couple
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking
argument about th
e
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her
narrative" What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.
So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.
The news media decides what they run with.
So do bloggers, facebook posters etc.
Now you're talking about so many people that isn't a consp[iracy so
much as it is public opinion. Which was not favorable to Hillary.
A breakdown of how much coverage announcements got would be
interesting, I think the campaign probably became a bit negative
with an emphasis on Trump is bad but I also don't know how much
of that view is created by people choosing what to run with from
everything she said.
Both candidates tried to play the press like a fiddle. The press
cheerfully let them, becauase it sold adverisging (which is the
_only_ thing they care about). Trump had more experience at it, and
thus more skill, and had the advantage of not giving a shit what
anybody thinks about him (making him the maverick underdog, which
Americans love).
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few people
voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one of those claims.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because
she's a woman. -> > She lost because she was a shitty candidate
who inspired no one.
-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an impact
on -how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because they
want -a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative is a woman.
A good female candidate can win election just about anywhere.
Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3 times
against male opponents.
That's a significantly different situation from winning the
presidency, or an entire state in a presidential campaign.
There is, expecially in the south. In the south, it's even more
difficult for a woman to prevail over a man. So apparently, there
are other factors that are far more important.
When one of the states mentioned has only ever had a handful of democratic presidential candidates get electoral college votes it suggests pretty strongly that it's a tough place for a democratic candidate in a federal election.

In this case the more important factor appears to be a 20 year slander campaign
and completely ignoring all the wrongdoings of Trump...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Romney beat Obama 54% to 44% McCain beat Obama 53.9% to 44.9%.
Trump beat Hillary 54% to 40.9%
So "winning" the popular vote while losing the election is politics
as usual.
Individual states Terry
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
In 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state,
S.C.
Hoorah, how much weight was the GOP putting into hit campaigns
on Nikki Haley? How many millions did the GOP spend on
investigations into attacks on an embassy where the GOP had
reduced security funding?
If you're claiming that the GOP didn't care enough about winning
the governoship in _South Carolina_, you're making an extraordinary
claim, and need some extraordinary evidence to support it.
Fortunately if makes that conditional so it can be ignored.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Otherwise, you just look like a whiny liberal who needs his diaper
changed.
Post by Quadibloc
Heidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a
male. But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that
state, N.D.
According to Wikipedia the following is the list of Democrat
candidates who have got electoral college votes from North
Dakota
Grover Cleveland (1892, one of three votes), Woodrow Wilson
(1912 and 1916), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 and 1936), and
Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
McCain got 53% versus Obama, Rommney got 58% (Obama 38%)
Making Heitkamp even more extraordinary, and providing even
stronger counterevidence to your claim that women have a
disadvantage in elections.
No, showing that the presidential and senate votes are different.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal
Ball & Obama - > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying
anything - > we don't know already."
- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part of
that assessment?
Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
They're certainly starting at a major disadvantage.
But not nearly as big a disadvantage as being Hillary Clinton.
Remember at the time Hillary had over a 60% approval rating as
Secretary of State,
That'd be the same polls that showed her willing the election in a
landslide? yeah, that's convincing.
Polls which had her in front until the FBI announcement of reopening the investigation on her emails just before the election.
Polls which gave her a touch over an 80% chance of winning, which means about a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning...
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
by the election campaign she was being
bagged hugely over it. There's a lot of studies which show that
any woman running for a higher position or promotion is judged
harshly, she's either too soft to do the job or a bitch.
And yet, women win national level elections on a regular basis.
and yet do you think a woman who'd had 5 kids with 3 different fathers could have become president?
Do you think a woman with the same personality as Trump could have become president?
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Were these "studies" done by the same people that said Clinton had
the election by a landslide?
Clinton lost becase as much as people hate Trump, they hate her
even more.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-11 23:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 1:32:15 PM UTC+10, a425couple
Post by Quadibloc
-> >
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary
-cl inton-why
-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
Post by Quadibloc
-> > which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton
that have be
en
Post by Quadibloc
-> > made in this newsgroup.
-> > John Savard
Post by a425couple
Sheesh!!
Do you agree with Susan Bardos?
"The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, makes a striking
argument about th
e
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
cause of Clinton’s loss: She had no control of her
narrative" What a steaming pile of distortions! ----
- Oh bullshit.
So you really want to claim, that with all the news and
other free coverage, plus having 1.2 Billion $ to spend,
Hillary Clinton had "no control of her narrative".
She could have sent out any narrative or message she wanted to.
The news media decides what they run with.
So do bloggers, facebook posters etc.
Now you're talking about so many people that isn't a
consp[iracy so much as it is public opinion. Which was not
favorable to Hillary.
A breakdown of how much coverage announcements got would be
interesting, I think the campaign probably became a bit
negative with an emphasis on Trump is bad but I also don't
know how much of that view is created by people choosing what
to run with from everything she said.
Both candidates tried to play the press like a fiddle. The
press cheerfully let them, becauase it sold adverisging (which
is the _only_ thing they care about). Trump had more experience
at it, and thus more skill, and had the advantage of not giving
a shit what anybody thinks about him (making him the maverick
underdog, which Americans love).
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one
of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to figure
out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes her," you
confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who are, for the most
part, the die hard base of each party) with those who vote
*against* each candidate. All elections in the US are decided by
the middle, who aren't committed to either party. And they
generally dislike both candidates. In this case, more voted against
Clinton than against Trump. (As I predicted: Some Democrats who
refused to vote for Clinton voted for Trump. Republicans who
refused to vote for Trump would vote for Satan before they voted
for Hillary Clinton.)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
->> Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who
-> > couldn't win three states that Obama won handily in
-> > the two prior elections. Clinton did not lose because
she's a woman. -> > She lost because she was a shitty
candidate who inspired no one.
-Yeah, there's no way that sexism could possibly have an
impact on -how easy it is for people to get votes...
-Or how much people will believe bullshit stories because
they want -a reason not to vote for a woman.
-Or how much they'll forgive a man because the alternative
is a woman.
A good female candidate can win election just about
anywhere.
Nikki Haley, a female (also an Indian American, and a Sikh)
won a seat in South Carolina House of Representatives 3
times against male opponents.
That's a significantly different situation from winning the
presidency, or an entire state in a presidential campaign.
There is, expecially in the south. In the south, it's even more
difficult for a woman to prevail over a man. So apparently,
there are other factors that are far more important.
When one of the states mentioned has only ever had a handful of
democratic presidential candidates get electoral college votes
it suggests pretty strongly that it's a tough place for a
democratic candidate in a federal election.
In this case the more important factor appears to be a 20 year
slander campaign and completely ignoring all the wrongdoings of
Trump...
That's the drugs talkign to you, and you're hallucinating that
Clinton did not illegally run her own mail server, resulting in the
compromise of quite a lot of classified information, and the
resulting coverup of *hundreds* of felonies by Obama, the FBI, and
without question, Clinton.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Romney beat Obama 54% to 44% McCain beat Obama 53.9% to
44.9%. Trump beat Hillary 54% to 40.9%
So "winning" the popular vote while losing the election is
politics as usual.
Individual states Terry
And? Trump still won the election. Because more people voted
against Clinton than against Trump. Your hallucinations
notwithstanding.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
In 2010 she won the Governorship over a male 51% to 47%.
In 2014 she won the Governorship over a male 56% to 41%.
But Hillary Clinton only got 41% of the vote in that state, S.C.
Hoorah, how much weight was the GOP putting into hit
campaigns on Nikki Haley? How many millions did the GOP spend
on investigations into attacks on an embassy where the GOP
had reduced security funding?
If you're claiming that the GOP didn't care enough about
winning the governoship in _South Carolina_, you're making an
extraordinary claim, and need some extraordinary evidence to
support it.
Fortunately if makes that conditional so it can be ignored.
In other words, you got nothing. As expected.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Otherwise, you just look like a whiny liberal who needs his
diaper changed.
Post by Quadibloc
Heidi Heitkamp, a female, and a Democrat, had won election
as a state Attorney General and state tax commisioner.
In 2011 she won the North Dakota seat for Senator against a
male. But Hillary Clinton only got 27% of the vote in that
state, N.D.
According to Wikipedia the following is the list of Democrat
candidates who have got electoral college votes from North
Dakota
Grover Cleveland (1892, one of three votes), Woodrow Wilson
(1912 and 1916), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 and 1936), and
Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
McCain got 53% versus Obama, Rommney got 58% (Obama 38%)
Making Heitkamp even more extraordinary, and providing even
stronger counterevidence to your claim that women have a
disadvantage in elections.
No, showing that the presidential and senate votes are
different.
Only in your mind, pookie. But then, so is the rest of the world,
in your mind.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
- > Please do recall what John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Krystal
Ball & Obama - > had to say about her in 2008.
- > MSNBC Host & Top Democrats Turn On Hillary Clinton
- > http://youtu.be/zZ0PtdXr238
- > "They are not going to vote for her. I'm not saying
anything - > we don't know already."
- and you don't think they were considering sexism as part
of that assessment?
Are you really believing, that no female can win the POTUS?
They're certainly starting at a major disadvantage.
But not nearly as big a disadvantage as being Hillary Clinton.
Remember at the time Hillary had over a 60% approval rating
as Secretary of State,
That'd be the same polls that showed her willing the election
in a landslide? yeah, that's convincing.
Polls which had her in front until the FBI announcement of
reopening the investigation on her emails just before the
election.
Polls that had her winning by a landslide _on election day_.
Polls which gave her a touch over an 80% chance of
winning, which means about a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning...
And which were not only wrong, but complete bullshit.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
by the election campaign she was being
bagged hugely over it. There's a lot of studies which show
that any woman running for a higher position or promotion is
judged harshly, she's either too soft to do the job or a
bitch.
And yet, women win national level elections on a regular basis.
and yet do you think a woman who'd had 5 kids with 3 different
fathers could have become president? Do you think a woman with
the same personality as Trump could have become president?
It's not like Trump wasn't exoriated over those very things. But
none of those things involve illegal mail servers and massive
coverups of the felonies that resulted, or criminal pay-for-play
allegations at the State Department, or giving large quantities of
uranium to Russia, or massive payments by Russia to a foundation,
or any of the other *many* criminal allegations that Clinton still
can't shake.

But, hey, by all means, I encourage you and other liberals to
continue to live in your comfortable fantasy world. You've already
guaranteed that Trump will get reelected if he wants it, and are
very, very close to guaranteeing that the Democrats won't see the
inside of the White House or a majority in either house of Congress
for at least a generation. More, if you keep up.

Trump ran as a Republican because Clinton was the only candidate he
could beat. And he beat her like a runaway step child.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-12 00:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to figure
out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes her," you
confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who are, for the most
part, the die hard base of each party) with those who vote
*against* each candidate.
If more people voted against Clinton than voted against trump and few people voted for either candidate perhaps you can explain how Clinton got almost 3 million more votes?
Kevrob
2017-04-12 01:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to figure
out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes her," you
confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who are, for the most
part, the die hard base of each party) with those who vote
*against* each candidate.
If more people voted against Clinton than voted against trump and few people voted for either candidate perhaps you can explain how Clinton got almost 3 million more votes?
By running up the score in California. Clinton beat Trump
there by 4,269,978 votes: 61% to 31%. The national popular vote
margin was 2,868,529, which is only "3 million" by aggressive
rounding.

See: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Now, "Trump won the popular vote, if you throw out the
most populous state" isn't a saner claim than "Hillary
was robbed because she lost the electoral college," but
them's the rules and, given her and her outfit's long
involvement in electoral politics and the "big data"
tech the Dems had developed, plus their vast campaign
spending advantage, what other explanation is there for
HRC losing other than "maybe the dogs don't like the
dog food?"

Kevin R
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-12 01:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least one of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to figure
out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes her," you
confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who are, for the most
part, the die hard base of each party) with those who vote
*against* each candidate.
If more people voted against Clinton than voted against trump and few people voted for either candidate perhaps you can explain how Clinton got almost 3 million more votes?
By running up the score in California.
and californians aren't people or something?
Post by Kevrob
Clinton beat Trump
there by 4,269,978 votes: 61% to 31%. The national popular vote
margin was 2,868,529, which is only "3 million" by aggressive
rounding.
check the definition of "almost"
Post by Kevrob
See: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Now, "Trump won the popular vote, if you throw out the
most populous state" isn't a saner claim than "Hillary
was robbed because she lost the electoral college," but
them's the rules and, given her and her outfit's long
involvement in electoral politics and the "big data"
tech the Dems had developed, plus their vast campaign
spending advantage, what other explanation is there for
HRC losing other than "maybe the dogs don't like the
dog food?"
WTF are you dribbling about there?
Kevrob
2017-04-12 05:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
By running up the score in California.
and californians aren't people or something?
They - or some of them - are citizens who can vote.
(Trump seems to think many are non-citizens who voted,
but he hasn't proved that.)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Clinton beat Trump
there by 4,269,978 votes: 61% to 31%. The national popular vote
margin was 2,868,529, which is only "3 million" by aggressive
rounding.
check the definition of "almost"
It's 95.6% of 3 million.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
See: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Now, "Trump won the popular vote, if you throw out the
most populous state" isn't a saner claim than "Hillary
was robbed because she lost the electoral college," but
them's the rules and, given her and her outfit's long
involvement in electoral politics and the "big data"
tech the Dems had developed, plus their vast campaign
spending advantage, what other explanation is there for
HRC losing other than "maybe the dogs don't like the
dog food?"
WTF are you dribbling about there?
I see you use an Australian server to post. I'm sorry if my
dribblings are too "inside baseball" to mix metaphors.

Electoral College votes are won, in unit blocks, state by state.
Exceptions are Maine, which awards its 4 half winner-take-all
and the other two to the winners of the vote in its two
congressional districts. Nebraska awards 2 winner-take-all,
and 3 by district. Plurality victories without any proportional
splits are the rule, and there's no transferable vote or ranked
voting. In a 3-way race, a candidate who won 34% in enough states
could get an electoral vote majority.

It is not a popular-vote system. If it were, we'd have
needed a national run-off, or some other election system.
So piling up large majorities in certain states (NY,
CA, TX) doesn't win you any more electoral votes than if
you won them by the skin of your teeth.

The dog food crack is an old advertising joke.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/maybe-the-dogs-dont-like-it.html

Kevin R

Neither a HRC/Dem nor DJT/GOP voter, BTW
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-12 05:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
By running up the score in California.
and californians aren't people or something?
They - or some of them - are citizens who can vote.
(Trump seems to think many are non-citizens who voted,
but he hasn't proved that.)
By a huge value of hasn't proved....
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Clinton beat Trump
there by 4,269,978 votes: 61% to 31%. The national popular vote
margin was 2,868,529, which is only "3 million" by aggressive
rounding.
check the definition of "almost"
It's 95.6% of 3 million.
and you don't think 95% of something is almost?
So you'd object to describing $190 as almost $200?
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
See: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Now, "Trump won the popular vote, if you throw out the
most populous state" isn't a saner claim than "Hillary
was robbed because she lost the electoral college," but
them's the rules and, given her and her outfit's long
involvement in electoral politics and the "big data"
tech the Dems had developed, plus their vast campaign
spending advantage, what other explanation is there for
HRC losing other than "maybe the dogs don't like the
dog food?"
WTF are you dribbling about there?
I see you use an Australian server to post. I'm sorry if my
dribblings are too "inside baseball" to mix metaphors.
WTF if the posts you were responding to was there anything like a claim that "Hillary was robbed because she lost the electoral college,"

The claim being addressed was Terry's claim that
- more people voted against Clinton than against Trump.
- few people voted for either candidate

Now considering that Clinton got almost 3 million more votes than Trump how can Terry's claim be true?

Note that nowhere in that am I saying that Clinton won the election or that she was ripped off by the electoral college
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-12 06:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
I see you use an Australian server to post.
Ah, I hadn't realized he was not only completely full of shit, but
actually talking out his ass about something he not only knows
nothing about, but that's none of his business anyway.

In short, Quaddie, only even stupider.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-12 06:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
WTF are you dribbling about there?
Reality. Something you are no longer aware of.

Seriously, dude, get help.

Or not. The Democrats getting the White House back would be a
nightmare.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-12 05:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 9:50:45 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 3:16:48 AM UTC+10, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More people voted against Clinton than against Trump. Few
people voted *for* either one.
Considering the actual vote count you're wrong on at least
one of those claims.
As is typical for the hallucination liberal, while trying to
figure out a reason why Clinton lost other than "nobody likes
her," you confuse those who voted *for* each candidate (who
are, for the most part, the die hard base of each party) with
those who vote *against* each candidate.
If more people voted against Clinton than voted against trump
and few people voted for either candidate perhaps you can
explain how Clinton got almost 3 million more votes?
What did they teach in 6th grade math class? Sersiously. I could
have figured this out then, without help.

If you take your meds - every day - the voices will stop.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 02:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
and yet do you think a woman who'd had 5 kids with 3 different fathers could
have become president?
However little sympathy I may have for Donald Trump, I believe that this is
asking a bit too much of the electorate in the area of equality for women.

It is one thing to call for equality for women in the sense that a woman with
talent and ability should not have her ambitions thwarted simply because she is
not male.

It is quite another to re-arrange the world as if the sexual act is an entirely
symmetrical one.

Of course, it could be argued that the real asymmetries only make it worse,
since it is clearly a moral fault to take advantage of others, compared to being
taken advantage of by others.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-17 03:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:39:56 PM UTC-6,
Post by h***@gmail.com
and yet do you think a woman who'd had 5 kids with 3 different
fathers could have become president?
However little sympathy I may have for Donald Trump, I believe
that this is asking a bit too much of the electorate in the area
of equality for women.
That would be becaus you obviously view women not as people, but as
property, literally, a plot of dirt to be ploughed and planted like
any other plot of dirt. You've made the very clear over the years.

That's why you're not allowed to be alone with one.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
m***@sky.com
2017-04-11 05:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been made in
this newsgroup.
John Savard
Hilary Clinton is refuting some of the stories (which I believed) about her health every time she is healthy enough to walk across a stage and give a coherent lecture. While I don't look forward to anybody's death I am enough younger than her that I expect to survive her and will be interested to see what she finally dies of and when. Of course, were she the villain of SF she would die by unnatural causes and so not provide as much useful information. From the introduction to Grey Lensman "And Morgan was murdered - supposedly by disgruntled gangsters; actually by his Kalonian boss, who was in turn a minion of the Eddorians - simply and merely because he had failed".
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-11 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://qz.com/953908/susan-bordos-the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-why-did-hillary-clinton-lose-the-2016-election/
which contradicts some statements about Hillary Clinton that have been made in
this newsgroup.
John Savard
Hilary Clinton is refuting some of the stories (which I believed) about her health every time she is healthy enough to walk across a stage and give a coherent lecture.
Yeah, somebody being sick at some stage during an election campaign must be a terminal case.
And have a look at Trump and see who you reckon is the bigger health risk...
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-11 17:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It was
HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled, but more
people voted against her than voted against Trump.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 02:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It was
HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled, but more
people voted against her than voted against Trump.
Incorrect.

Simply, factually, incorrect.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 03:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It
was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled,
but more people voted against her than voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
We're back to the original question, Alan:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/ye
s/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 03:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It
was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled,
but more people voted against her than voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Nope.

We are not.

You may continue to whine all you want, but we just aren't.

:-)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 06:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Until you answer - once, with a single answer, this is the *only*
thing any rational person would have to say to you. There is no
point it pretending to have any other conversation with you when
you are literally incapable of participating in the same
conversation as the other person.

We're back to the original question, Alan:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/ye
s/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 06:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Until you answer - once, with a single answer, this is the *only*
thing any rational person would have to say to you. There is no
point it pretending to have any other conversation with you when
you are literally incapable of participating in the same
conversation as the other person.
All your whining changes nothing about your refusal address the issue at
hand.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 06:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We're back to the original question, Alan:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 06:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whine on, Gutless.

Let's face it: you're a coward.

:-)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 15:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-13 13:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It was
HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled, but more
people voted against her than voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim? If a person votes for 'a', they
can do it either because they like 'a' more than 'b', or they dislike 'a' less
than 'b'. They can like, dislike, or be neutral about a candidate, and I'd
argue that for a vote 'for' a candidate requires an actual positivie opinion
of the candidate, while claiming a vote is a vote 'against' a candidate
similarly requires an active dislike for the candidate.

Myself, I detested both candidates. I voted for Gary Johnson, and in
hard-blue Massachusetts, I knew that who I selected didn't actually matter,
I'm effectively disenfranchised by the Electoral College. But I could signal
my dis-satisfaction with the major candidates, and possibly contribute to the
winner *not* also winning the popular vote.

So, my vote for Gary Johnson was a vote against Hillary, AND a vote against
Trump.

pt
Quadibloc
2017-04-13 13:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Can you point to your sources on this claim?
Well, if everyone on both sides voted against, more people voted against Trump
than against Hillary. That Electoral College thing.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 15:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:13:47 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Can you point to your sources on this claim?
Well, if everyone on both sides voted against,
A claim nobody has made, retard, and which I've explained is *not*
what I said.

Retard.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Woodward
2017-04-13 15:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News flash: It was
HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally reviled, but more
people voted against her than voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim? If a person votes for 'a', they
can do it either because they like 'a' more than 'b', or they dislike 'a' less
than 'b'. They can like, dislike, or be neutral about a candidate, and I'd
argue that for a vote 'for' a candidate requires an actual positivie opinion
of the candidate, while claiming a vote is a vote 'against' a candidate
similarly requires an active dislike for the candidate.
According to numbers I found, more people voted for the Republican
candidates in the House of Representatives races than for Trump (even
though he received votes in the District of Columbia which has no House
seat). However, Hilary Clinton received more votes than the Democratic
candidates in the House races (the margin was greater than the
population of the District of Columbia). The implication is that there
were Republican voters who declined to vote for Trump. BTW, both the
Libertarian Party and Green Party tripled their vote totals from the
2012 election, but the Libertarian Party did it from a much large base.
IMHO, the Libertarian party vote increase was more likely anti-Trump
than anti-Clinton.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 15:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:49:51 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker
On 2017-04-11 10:08 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News
flash: It was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were
universally reviled, but more people voted against her than
voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim? If a person votes
for 'a', they can do it either because they like 'a' more than
'b', or they dislike 'a' less than 'b'. They can like, dislike,
or be neutral about a candidate, and I'd argue that for a vote
'for' a candidate requires an actual positivie opinion of the
candidate, while claiming a vote is a vote 'against' a
candidate similarly requires an active dislike for the
candidate.
According to numbers I found, more people voted for the
Republican candidates in the House of Representatives races than
for Trump (even though he received votes in the District of
Columbia which has no House seat). However, Hilary Clinton
received more votes than the Democratic candidates in the House
races (the margin was greater than the population of the
District of Columbia).
Given the overwhelming majority the Republicans have in the House,
there is no meaningful data there. It could be that Trump received
1,000,000 votes, but House candidates received 1,000,0001, while
Clinton recieved 2 votes, but House candidates received 2.
The implication is that there were
Republican voters who declined to vote for Trump. BTW, both the
Libertarian Party and Green Party tripled their vote totals from
the 2012 election, but the Libertarian Party did it from a much
large base. IMHO, the Libertarian party vote increase was more
likely anti-Trump than anti-Clinton.
Which I predicted a year ago. More Democrates were willing to hold
their nose and vote for Trump because they hated Clinton than
Republicans who were willing to vote for Clinton (Satan) who
wouldn't vote for Trump. A member of either major party voting for
a third party candidate favors the party they are not in.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 17:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In article
Post by Peter Trei
On 2017-04-11 10:08 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
More whining about how it's not Hillary's fault. News
flash: It was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were
universally reviled, but more people voted against her than
voted against Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim? If a person votes
for 'a', they can do it either because they like 'a' more than
'b', or they dislike 'a' less than 'b'. They can like, dislike,
or be neutral about a candidate, and I'd argue that for a vote
'for' a candidate requires an actual positivie opinion of the
candidate, while claiming a vote is a vote 'against' a
candidate similarly requires an active dislike for the
candidate.
According to numbers I found, more people voted for the
Republican candidates in the House of Representatives races than
for Trump (even though he received votes in the District of
Columbia which has no House seat). However, Hilary Clinton
received more votes than the Democratic candidates in the House
races (the margin was greater than the population of the
District of Columbia).
Given the overwhelming majority the Republicans have in the House,
there is no meaningful data there. It could be that Trump received
1,000,000 votes, but House candidates received 1,000,0001, while
Clinton recieved 2 votes, but House candidates received 2.
Do they have an overwhelming majority of the VOTES?
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The implication is that there were
Republican voters who declined to vote for Trump. BTW, both the
Libertarian Party and Green Party tripled their vote totals from
the 2012 election, but the Libertarian Party did it from a much
large base. IMHO, the Libertarian party vote increase was more
likely anti-Trump than anti-Clinton.
Which I predicted a year ago. More Democrates were willing to hold
their nose and vote for Trump because they hated Clinton than
Republicans who were willing to vote for Clinton (Satan) who
wouldn't vote for Trump. A member of either major party voting for
a third party candidate favors the party they are not in.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 17:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/

no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/no/y

es/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/
yes/n

o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone

to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters." And you

*can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 15:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:49:51 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
It was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally
reviled, but more people voted against her than voted against
Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim?
The monkey that flew out of his ass. (Hint: He's too fucking stupid
and the hallucinations are too powerful for him to tell the
difference between "voted for" and "voted against," and the
unmeasurable claim I made, and the actual vote count. Which I've
already expalined, so don't boether to try. He *can't* interact with
the real world.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 17:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:49:51 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
It was HIllary's fault. Both candidates were universally
reviled, but more people voted against her than voted against
Trump.
Incorrect.
Simply, factually, incorrect.
Can you point to your sources on this claim?
The monkey that flew out of his ass. (Hint: He's too fucking stupid
and the hallucinations are too powerful for him to tell the
difference between "voted for" and "voted against," and the
unmeasurable claim I made, and the actual vote count. Which I've
already expalined, so don't boether to try. He *can't* interact with
the real world.)
As someone else just pointed out by nothing the difference between votes
in the house for republicans and democrats vs the votes for president,
your statement is wrong
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 17:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/

no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/no/y

es/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/
yes/n

o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone

to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters." And you

*can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2017-04-13 17:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?
All the whining in the world won't help you, Terry.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 18:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/

no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/no/y

es/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/
yes/n

o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone

to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters." And you

*can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mike Van Pelt
2017-04-13 19:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
So, my vote for Gary Johnson was a vote against Hillary,
AND a vote against Trump.
Pretty much my situation. Since Hillary could have been
sacrificing babies to Molech at her campaign stops here
in Calipornia without dropping here total below 60%, my
vote had little worth other than expressing my ire.

Both of the candidates were Anathema as far as I was
concerned. Lacking a third party to vote for, I'd have
written in Cthulhu as the lesser evil. At least it'd
be over quicker.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost | Mike Van Pelt
always a false front for the urge to rule." | mvp at calweb.com
-- H.L. Mencken | KE6BVH
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-14 01:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Peter Trei
So, my vote for Gary Johnson was a vote against Hillary,
AND a vote against Trump.
Pretty much my situation. Since Hillary could have been
sacrificing babies to Molech at her campaign stops here
in Calipornia without dropping here total below 60%, my
vote had little worth other than expressing my ire.
Both of the candidates were Anathema as far as I was
concerned. Lacking a third party to vote for, I'd have
written in Cthulhu as the lesser evil. At least it'd
be over quicker.
You shouldn't joke about that.
Kevrob
2017-04-14 01:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Peter Trei
So, my vote for Gary Johnson was a vote against Hillary,
AND a vote against Trump.
Pretty much my situation. Since Hillary could have been
sacrificing babies to Molech at her campaign stops here
in Calipornia without dropping here total below 60%, my
vote had little worth other than expressing my ire.
Both of the candidates were Anathema as far as I was
concerned. Lacking a third party to vote for, I'd have
written in Cthulhu as the lesser evil. At least it'd
be over quicker.
You shouldn't joke about that.
If you voted for Cthulhu would he eat you first?

Kevin R
s***@yahoo.com
2017-04-13 18:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What, no mention of orbital mind-control lasers?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-13 18:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
What, no mention of orbital mind-control lasers?
That's evidence they're real, you know. They won't _let_ him give any
details.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Loading...