Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Michelle Ruiz, Vogue: Hillary Clinton doesn't have to go out "gently" -- or be otherwise schooled on how she should or should not handle her particular, unprecedented situation. She's the first woman to win a major party's presidential nomination in American history; she definitely doesn't have to shut up about it, not now, not ever. ... The attempts to silence Clinton are in fact just more proof that the misogyny she writes about in What Happened was not imagined, and is still working against her.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Curiously, the impulse to banish Clinton has not applied to male presidential runners-up, as noted in The New Yorker's hilarious satirical essay "It's Time for Hillary Clinton to Gracefully Bow Out of Public Life, Taking All Other Women With Her." Writes Daniel Kibblesmith: "No recent failed presidential candidate has ever had such a prominent public role post-election, with the possible exceptions of Al Gore, who produced and starred in an Oscar-winning documentary; Senator John McCain, who is a constant television presence; and Mitt Romney, who -- you gotta admit -- seemed like a pretty good dude in that Netflix movie."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Not that anyone that is being called out by this piece will actually read it. Gono, throw me a hands-up emoticon thingy that you kids and nulli are using these days.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1


"Curiously, the impulse to banish Clinton has not applied to male presidential runners-up, as noted in The New Yorker's hilarious satirical essay "It's Time for Hillary Clinton to Gracefully Bow Out of Public Life, Taking All Other Women With Her." Writes Daniel Kibblesmith:

"No recent failed presidential candidate has ever had such a prominent public role post-election, with the possible exceptions of Al Gore, who produced and starred in an Oscar-winning documentary; Senator John McCain, who is a constant television presence; and Mitt Romney, who -- you gotta admit -- seemed like a pretty good dude in that Netflix movie."

lol, nice find, Hulk.

The standard is double.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-13 11:15 AM | Reply


... The attempts to silence Clinton are in fact just more proof that the misogyny she writes about ...

If the attempts really are proof, then the bar for proving something has been lowered significantly.

In my eyes, I'd like fmr Sec of State Clinton to fade out of the limelight because

(1) she lost
(2) she made significant tactical errors that caused (1)
(3) she made significant strategic errors that caused (1)
(4) she has way too much baggage to carry
(5) Democrats need to move on

Note that I am not telling her to shut up. I am encouraging her to allow others to have the limelight that she so greatly mishandled. She can keep talking all she wants. Just pass the microphone to others.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-09-13 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I would really encourage her to shut up and go back into the woods, along with her most vocal supporters, some pointed sticks, and a few bags of marshmallows.

#4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-09-13 11:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

(1) she lost
(2) she made significant tactical errors that caused (1)
(3) she made significant strategic errors that caused (1)
(4) she has way too much baggage to carry
(5) Democrats need to move on

Note that I am not telling her to shut up. I am encouraging her to allow others to have the limelight that she so greatly mishandled. She can keep talking all she wants. Just pass the microphone to others.

#3 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2017-09-13 11:16 AM | REPLY | FLAG:


Ready to apply that to Sanders too?

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, she absolutely needs to continue talking about it and throwing people under the bus! We both encourage and support Hillary's attempt to point fingers of blame and further alienate anyone who voted for Bernie or Jill." - Republican National Committee

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-13 11:38 AM | Reply

Ready to apply that to Sanders too?

Absolutely, he is too old to effectively carry the flag for the party that he isn't even a member of.

#7 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-09-13 11:45 AM | Reply

#7 You're going to get yelled at for that common sense.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:47 AM | Reply

They're going to deploy the "lol machines" and calls of "bitch" soon.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:48 AM | Reply

Bernie couldn't get her to shut up. Donald couldn't get her to shut up. Let's see the sarcastic know-it-alls bring it.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:49 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

That's 3, now 4 for the counters.

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:49 AM | Reply


@#5 ... Ready to apply that to Sanders too? ...

Sen Sanders did not self-destruct in a manner similar to fmr Sec of State Clinton. Sen Sanders went up against the Democratic machine (wow, I haven't used that phrase since the Cook County days, but I digress...) and lost. Not because of the reasons I cited in my prior message, but because the Democratic machine prevented him from winning.

So, no, I'm not ready also to apply that to Sen Sanders. I'd let him continue to have a microphone until he shows himself to be unworthy of it. He's not whining about losing, he's fostering a conversation about the future.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-09-13 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I'd let him continue to have a microphone until he shows himself to be unworthy of it.

#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT

Losing by 4 million votes didn't "show him unworthy of it"?

What's the line on that?

4.5 million?

6 million?

#13 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-13 11:59 AM | Reply

Seriously, how many?

8, 10, 12 million?

#14 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-13 12:01 PM | Reply

but because the Democratic machine prevented him from winning.

#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT

Are you sure it wasn't the 4 million less votes he got??

#15 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-13 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ya! look at the misogyny at play! They did it to Mittina Romney too!!!

thedailybanter.com

A girl can't get a break

#16 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-09-13 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2017-09-13 11:49 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sounds like a spoiler who should have ran as an independent.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 12:26 PM | Reply

Bernie harmed the party irreparably. Look at the people relishing destruction of the party.

He needs to finish his teeny bopper book. Take his money and go live in his five lake houses.

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Democratic machine prevented him from winning."

That's a funny way of saying "Bernie couldn't put down the crack pipe long enough to file his paperwork, or actually make any plan to win"

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 12:31 PM | Reply

@#13 ... Losing by 4 million votes didn't "show him unworthy of it"? ...

Correct.

I look more at what he is doing with the microphone when I decide whether he should keep using it.

Sen Sanders is talking about the future.

Fmr Sec of State Clinton has been whining about the past.

Or, as I said in #12: He's not whining about losing, he's fostering a conversation about the future.

I don't necessarily agree with what Sen Sanders is saying, but he is fostering a good conversation.

We cannot change the past. We can change the future.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-09-13 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Sanders is talking about the future."

He's talking about the past using other people's ideas.

He's a fraud.

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Clinton is talking about the future of the party.

Bernie is readying his retirement account.

#22 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 12:52 PM | Reply

Bruce, when I read this article last night, I thought of you. Enjoy:

Throughout the 2016 campaign, a pattern emerged in Ms. Clinton's public approval ratings. When she addressed Americans directly in high-rated televised events, like the presidential debates and the Democratic National Convention, her public approval went up. When Americans read about her through the filter of the media, who obsessed over her e-mails and created fake controversies around topics like the Clinton Foundation, her popularity plummeted.

It is therefore not surprising that Ms. Clinton would seek to take control of her own narrative. It is also not unique for a politician to write a book; many of the candidates who ran for president in 2016 have done so, and fellow loser Bernie Sanders published his own campaign postmortem one week after the election.

. . . Ms. Clinton has been accused of "not moving on" – an ironic twist given that Mr. Trump has spent his whole career reviving D-listers, whether in entertainment, on The Celebrity Apprentice; in politics, where he rescued bigots like Jeff Sessions and David Duke from irrelevance; or in both (in the case of White House staffer Omarosa.) There are many political figures Americans would like to see "move on," including Mr. Trump and his coterie. Yet we are still greeted with the sight of former adviser Steve Bannon spouting white nationalist bromides on 60 Minutes – by any reasonable standard, a bigger problem than Ms. Clinton's book.

beta.theglobeandmail.com

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Yes! I have similar observations. Thank you for that one.

I am so disappointed in the Bernie Bros. The day they were calling for other Dems to bow down to them, was so pathetic.

#24 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 01:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I stopped caring about Hillary's future when she lost.

But I enjoy the hell out of how much it bothers her rabid haters when she speaks out.

#27 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-13 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My God the butt hurt is palpable.

As for claims of misogyny well...eat a dick.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But I enjoy the hell out of how much it bothers her sycophants when anything negative is spoken about her."

ft

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 02:48 PM | Reply

I hope she stays out there reminding one and all of what a pathetic person/candidate the dems tried to foist onto the nation.

#30 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-13 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the funniest thing about this whole Hillary/Bernie thing is that every one of Hillary's supporters were sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that having Sanders in the primary was a great thing. Bernie would help shape the debates, stoke conversations, and drive Hillary to the left a little.....all things that would prove to generate a lock for Hillary when she eventually wins the primary and runs against whomever was going to survive the klowncar show that is the GOP.

And it's obvious all of those political whizzes still think they know something about politics. Haven't gotten a single thing right....but still here every day spouting their brilliance.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- still here every day spouting their brilliance.

A problem you will never, ever, have.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-13 02:55 PM | Reply

I hope she stays out there reminding one and all of what a pathetic person/candidate the dems tried to foist onto the nation.

Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-13 02:49 PM | Reply

THIS THIS OMFG THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Smoochies dear EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 02:56 PM | Reply

#32 of course corky takes the low road..

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hope she stays out there reminding one and all of what a pathetic person/candidate the dems tried to foist onto the nation.

Yeah, we were crazy nominating a former Secretary of State, major-state U.S. Senator and First Lady with over 25 years in public life who was the most admired woman in America for a record 20 years. What were we thinking?

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-13 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

32

here every day? you got that right.

my brilliance is valued in many places......but it requires a certain level of enlightenment to absorb it.

A problem you will never, ever, have.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 03:02 PM | Reply

#35 certainly not any sort of context of the election regarding Obama's win, Dem collapse in Congress and state government offices and the general pulse of the electorate beyond the Dem base concentrated on the coasts.

You could smoke the most perfect brisket of all time but how many awards will you win with it at a vegan contest?

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- certain level of enlightenment

It's good for you to be proud of that 3rd grade edumacation.

No matter what anyone else says.

#34

Yeah, because what I was retorting was such high road material. Uh-huh.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-13 03:09 PM | Reply

Watching her incessant whining and finger-pointing over the election result further confirms to me that she is unfit for office (as is Trump).

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 03:10 PM | Reply

Jesus christ, seriously?

The attempts to silence Clinton are in fact just more proof that the misogyny she writes about in What Happened was not imagined, and is still working against her.

The only misogyny revolving around Clinton is the kind she perpetuates. This is her excuse and it is damaging to all women for her to use her womanness as an excuse for her lose. No one (on the Left -- no need to discuss the lunatics on the right) wants her silenced because she is a woman. We want her silenced because everything she says as of late is toxic to the goals of a progressive, liberal nation.

I wish she would f*** off so real progressives like Warren or Duckworth could get some time in the limelight and keep the sexists claiming clinton faces misogyny from the left at bay.

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-09-13 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, we were crazy nominating a former Secretary of State, major-state U.S. Senator and First Lady with over 25 years in public life who was the most admired woman in America for a record 20 years. What were we thinking?

----

Too bad she was trying to tap into the political outsider movement. Nothing says political outside like those creds!

#41 | Posted by Pirate at 2017-09-13 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When "progressives" finally finish off Hillary, they can turn their attention to other issues.

Can you believe she just 'aint complying with these boys who want to tell her to sit down and shut up?

tsk tsk tsk.

#42 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 03:30 PM | Reply

#42 keep spinning the BS misogyny threads.

I'm sure that'll attract people to your view point.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Cuddles aren't being handed out today.

#44 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 04:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Neither is insightful or useful information.

Just MISOGYNY!!!

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah, because what I was retorting was such high road material. Uh-huh.

#38 | Posted by Corky

The fact that you're being such a child suggests you know it's correct.

Face it. You were stuck in 2008 and it cost us.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Yeah, because what I was retorting was such high road material. Uh-huh."

It was high road. It was fact. 100% fact.

Which is why you cried and went low road by making it personal.

You're the personal insult KING on this place.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"MISOGYNY!!!"

Tell me which man is treated like this?

#48 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 04:34 PM | Reply

Tell me which man is treated like this?

#48 | Posted by BruceBanner

Tell me which man (I'm assuming you mean male candidates who lost) went on a martyr tour to cleanse their soul of any blame for the loss.

Because that's why people want her to stop speaking.

It's what is being said, not who is saying it that's the problem.

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#48 - Did John McCain and Mitt Romney complain about losing? Find a man who complains and blames everyone else this much and we'll talk. Clinton has, seemingly, zero introspection.

#50 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-13 04:56 PM | Reply

See? You guys are doing a great job of proving my point.

The other Bernie Bros called her an effing bitch the other day.

It's just too obvious?

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The other Bernie Bros called her an effing bitch the other day.
It's just too obvious?

#51 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

If the shoe fits? :-)

Politicians are called horrible things all of the time. None of this is exclusive to Hillary and her pity party.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 05:03 PM | Reply

So you're agreeing then Jeff.

#53 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 05:05 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

No, I'm not agreeing.

Hillary isn't being treated any worse than any other polarizing politician. Also, she's bringing a lot of this on herself. She's blaming everything under the sun for her defeat except herself. It's pathetic even to sympathetic people in her own party.

I hope that doesn't make you angry because I know that I won't like it when you are angry.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#51 what point is that?

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 05:10 PM | Reply

"Hillary isn't being treated any worse"

This is the fundamental disagreement.

#56 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 05:11 PM | Reply

In comparison with the 2016 election, Al Gore had more of a claim to be rightfully butt hurt over an election loss and after the election he stfu and made an award winning movie + a lot of money for himself and his cause. It is time for Rodhamites to MoveOn.org.

#57 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-13 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess if there anything to enjoy about Donnie Drumpsterfire's presidency it's reading butt hurt morons like BruceBanal hold a grudge.

Of course it's misogyny. There's no other explanation. Her pathetic loss of the electoral college, her inability to articulate her plans for her presidency, her collusion with the DNC to be the democratic nominee, her overconfidence she had the election locked in... all misogyny.

I remember when Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, BushSr, Dukakis... lost and everyone sat around listening to them complaining about how it was everyone else's fault they lost. Oh wait. That never happened.

Hillary Clinton is acting like she's owed something. She's isn't. She wasn't owed the presidency. She didn't win the presidency. She lost twice. She's a loser. A joke. A failure. The more she reminds us of what soar loser she is. The more I realize her loss is her own fault.

And all you Hilbots. Blaming Bernie Sanders. Come off as even more pathetic.

What a group of weak minded fools you are. Is that your mentality towards life? It's always someone else's fault? You're incapable of accepting responsibility for your nominee's failure? Pathetic.

Bernie is still out there. Giving speeches. Fighting for a better tomorrow. He didn't get discouraged by his primary loss. Even after it was revealed the DNC and DWS colluded against him. He threw his support to Hillary. He campaigned for her. He kept spreading its message.

What has Hillary done? Sulked and complained and thrown people under the bus.

What great qualities she has as a leader. (Not)

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Hillary isn't being treated any worse"
This is the fundamental disagreement.
#56 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-09-13 05:11 PM | FLAG:

Nothing fundamental about it at all.

Objectively, Hillary isn't being treated any worse than any other candidate before her.

No one cares about the loser.

Hillary is no different.

You just want special treatment for her.

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 05:19 PM | Reply

#55 the point made by this article and many others.

I wish you would take your own advice and try a little civility towards others on the left and center. To try also try to recruit Clinton supporters into a unified party instead of taking a dump on them.

#60 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 05:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Also, she's bringing a lot of this on herself. She's blaming everything under the sun for her defeat except herself. It's pathetic even to sympathetic people in her own party.

Bears repeating, and I volunteered for her in SF.

Let the new blood take the spotlight, you have passed your last fortnight.

#61 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-09-13 05:32 PM | Reply

I guarantee you had Obama lost to Hillary and 10 months after the election and wrote a book bashing Hillary the Hillary supporters would be all saying he is being a whiney loser. But it seems the standards are different for Hillary.

#62 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Honestly, I wish she would just go away. Like Romney did in 2012, or to large degree, McCain in 2008. Just go away. In time the wounds of 2016 will heal and we will be ready to welcome HRC back as a former carrier of the Democratic banner. But let a few years pass. Now it just seems like HRC is picking at fresh scabs. IMO I don't think wanting HRC to just go away for a nice long hiatus has anything to do with misogyny. Also, for what it is worth, within their own Party neither Romney nor McCain were as divisive as HRC turned out to be.

#63 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-13 05:39 PM | Reply

#35

Don't forget, the only candidate to rival Trump in unpopularity.

When repubs landed with the most #1 unpopular candidate in modern history, Dems decided to risk it with a big #2.

#64 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 05:53 PM | Reply

#58 = NW flag.

#65 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 05:55 PM | Reply

...Anyone ever had an argument with their spouse? Ever thought the argument was over and forgotten and then your spouse brought it up again? And again? And again? And finally you just get so sick of hearing the spouse whine about the topic that in exhaustion you just completely stop listening whenever the topic is brought up once again?

Me neither.

#66 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-13 06:07 PM | Reply

#66

I'm sure lots of people have, and would have divorced her in response. The book tour is just her way of collecting alimony.

#67 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 06:11 PM | Reply

#60 c'mon man. She's been firing broadsides at everyone over the past week and we're supposed to a. Listen and not respond and b. Play nice afterwards?

Give me a break.

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 06:15 PM | Reply

#68 - I'm saying that Clinton voters saw a lot of things they didn't like this election. The approach of people attacking her is not going to win over a single Clinton voter. If anything, it will harden them against Bernie and his people.

Bernie released his book. He's on TV every night. Do you see Clinton people attacking him? Calling him a bitch? Complaining that he's a loser who lost to the worst candidate in American History?

I think the Clinton people have been very gentle toward others on the Left and have focused on beating Trump in the future.

#69 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 06:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you see Clinton people attacking him?
#69 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-09-13 06:20 PM

Um.. Hil' herself is out there blaming for Trump, right now.

Amazing how Clinton's lack of self awareness extends to her die hard supporters.

#70 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 06:24 PM | Reply

#68 - I will add, as a second, but very important point here: If one were to re-write the rhetoric around Clinton, others might start to see some of her actions in a different light.

She came out and said she is no longer a candidate. So there is no race to be won here. Then she gave her opinion on what went wrong in her run. I think that is just fine. People who don't want to read it, can save their money. I don't see anything wrong with taking her opinion seriously so that we don't make the same mistakes next time.

One of her comments was that the campaigns of Clinton vs Sanders went on far too long and it hurt the ability for the two sides to unite. Here we are witnessing that truth.

I've consistently worded my comments in a way that is respectful to others and I get #58 as a response. No thank you.

#71 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 06:26 PM | Reply

See? Trumpers and Bernie folks unite!

#72 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 06:28 PM | Reply

Bernie released his book. He's on TV every night. Do you see Clinton people attacking him? Calling him a bitch? Complaining that he's a loser who lost to the worst candidate in American History?
I think the Clinton people have been very gentle toward others on the Left and have focused on beating Trump in the future.

Do you not read your own posts?

You've been bitching about Bernie for so long it's become white noise.

Clinton people have been gentle?? Is that why you fools keep blaming Laura for Hillary's loss?

Wake you and smell your own stench.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"See? Trumpers and Bernie folks unite!"

Let's see if the unite in support of Bernie's Medicare for All plan.

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 06:33 PM | Reply

One of her comments was that the campaigns of Clinton vs Sanders went on far too long and it hurt the ability for the two sides to unite. Here we are witnessing that truth.

Yea! How dare Bernie not bow out when queen Hillary demanded it!?

He should have know his place!!

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trumpers and Bernie folks unite!

Stupid thoughts from stupid people.

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary and her supporters need some thicker Depends. They're the ones re-hashing this crap, so it's perfectly appropriate to remind what a crap candidate they got behind.

At least she's finally going to Wisconsin, lol.

#77 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 06:37 PM | Reply

#48 - Did John McCain and Mitt Romney complain about losing? Find a man who complains and blames everyone else this much and we'll talk. Clinton has, seemingly, zero introspection. "

Find a man? You're kidding, right? Donald J. Trump. To hear him tell it, he's never wrong about anything. Ever. Zero introspection there.

#78 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 06:39 PM | Reply

Let's see if the unite in support of Bernie's Medicare for All plan.
#74 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2017-09-13 06:33 PM

Bernie's working on policy goals while Hilosery is whining about him on the sidelines.

#79 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald J. Trump. To hear him tell it, he's never wrong about anything. Ever. Zero introspection there.

Ironic how the person you chose to compare Hillary to, is Trump.

They're more alike than anyone acknowledges.

#80 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Bernie's working on policy goals while Hilosery is whining about him on the sidelines."

Yes, it typical Bernie fashion:

'Medicare for All' will be a trap for Democrats if they're not careful

Sanders' bill makes sweeping promises -- free and extremely comprehensive coverage, much more generous than actually existing single-payer systems in other countries, with no co-payments or deductibles. And it contains no plan to pay for what would likely be, according to estimates of Sanders' campaign plan produced last year by the liberal Urban Institute think tank, an additional $32 trillion in federal spending over 10 years. (For comparison, the Congressional Budget Office projects total federal spending over the next 10 years of just $53 trillion.)

Sanders has proposed a "menu" of possible revenue-raising options. Its largest components are a new 7.5% payroll tax, a new 4% income tax, and the abolition of the existing tax exclusion for health insurance benefits. But this menu isn't included in the bill, meaning his cosponsors don't endorse it, and even if you ordered every item on the menu you would only generate $16 trillion in new revenue over a decade, per Sanders' own estimates.

www.businessinsider.com

I am all for MFA, but you have to do it responsibly. My own Senator (Gillibrand) is one of the bills co-sponsors. Obamacare became a trap. Repeal and Replace became a trap. Let's hope MFA doesn't become a trap. We'll have to see where this goes.

#81 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 06:49 PM | Reply

Republicans promise their constituents the moon and their constituents are happy with what they get.

Democrats promise their constituents the moon and their constituents complain it's unrealistic.

Ever hear of the phrase, "shoot for the stars"?

Trying to provide free healthcare for all but coming to a compromise is better than trying to start somewhere compromised and having to keep backing down.

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 06:53 PM | Reply

#78 - And haven't you noticed how there seems to be a vacuum of criticism of Trump? Misogyny indeed! /snark off

Thank you for proving the point. People, especially those on the left, telling her to go away, are not misogynist in their boredom of Hillary. She's just a whiny loser.

#83 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-09-13 06:53 PM | Reply

#81: an additional $32 trillion in federal spending over 10 years

In other words, the same amount Americans pay in healthcare costs now, just with better access and no insurance company rape.

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2017-09-13 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Republicans promise their constituents the moon and their constituents are happy with what they get.
Democrats promise their constituents the moon and their constituents complain it's unrealistic.
Ever hear of the phrase, "shoot for the stars"?
Trying to provide free healthcare for all but coming to a compromise is better than trying to start somewhere compromised and having to keep backing down."

Promising everyone MFA that is more generous than the current Medicare is reaching for the stars alright. No co-pays? No deductibles? Sure. How did "you can keep your own doctor" turn out for Obama? How is "my beautiful plan that will cover everybody and be cheaper and better than what we have now" turning out for Trump? If Trumpcare passes we'll see how happy Trump voters are with what they get. At what point does "shooting for the stars" turn into just more worthless political rhetoric and a passel of lies?

#85 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 07:01 PM | Reply

Best thing Hillary could have done was to invest herself into her charities and personal endeavors.

Help women's causes, children's causes, promote education, help third world civilizations improve the way of life for their people. Lead by example. Improve the image of the DNC.

Instead. She's taken the low road of blaming and being a victim.

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 07:02 PM | Reply

#86 My hope is she will still do those things. Time will tell.

#87 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 07:04 PM | Reply

Gono, throw me a hands-up emoticon thingy.... #1 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER
🙌 🄾🄷 🄷🄴🄻🄻 🄽🄰🅆 🙌

#88 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-13 07:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like I said, let's see how many Trump voters get behind Bernie's "enhanced" MFA plan:

The proposal, which Sanders is calling the "Medicare for All Act of 2017," looks a lot like the plan Sanders touted as a presidential candidate. As the name implies, it envisions giving everybody living in the U.S., including undocumented immigrants, an enhanced version of Medicare with virtually no out-of-pocket spending as well as dental, vision and hearing aid coverage. It would more or less wipe out private health insurance and give the federal government the same power to set prices and establish a national health care budget that most other democratic nations have.

www.huffingtonpost.com

I hope they do.

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 07:14 PM | Reply

So no response to #84? I guess even after all these years, facts remain inconvenient.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2017-09-13 07:19 PM | Reply

#90 I'm all for MFA, especially an enhanced version that covers everything (including vision and dental, which current Medicare doesn't cover) and has no copays or deductibles. That sounds wonderful to me. I'm not the one you have to convince.

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 07:24 PM | Reply

When even those who support single payer are attacking the purported cost while ignoring what we currently pay for "insurance," deductibles, out of pocket costs, prescriptions, etc, it really demonstrates the enormity of the problem.

Why are Americans so willing to fork over thousands per year to insurance companies but so skiddish about paying essentially the same thing toward a system that is proven to deliver better care, access and results?

#92 | Posted by JOE at 2017-09-13 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--it envisions giving everybody living in the U.S., including undocumented immigrants,

Utterly absurd. Talk about a run to the border. As if we didn't have enough slave labor. Watch the costs of this program skyrocket.

#93 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-13 07:28 PM | Reply

#93 Maybe Trump will have built the wall before MFA, including undocumented immigrants, kicks in?

#94 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 07:34 PM | Reply

Hi Null. Were a single-payer system adopted in America, what would you propose hospitals do when illegal immigrants appear at their door with a life-threatening illness?

I'm asking honestly - I'm not sure what other countries do but I'd imagine they treat the person. Maybe they send them a bill?

#95 | Posted by JOE at 2017-09-13 07:49 PM | Reply

Nulli prefers immigrants (legal or illegal) be rounded up and gassed.

He caught one napping on his lawn and never forgave them.

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 07:57 PM | Reply

Jesus Christ. Even Al Gore knew that continuing to prattle on about the election he lost was counterproductive to his party. I doubt anyone on the left would have any problem with Clinton speaking out if she had anything useful to say that isn't all about her and her ego, but she's demonstrated time and again she doesn't. She and her supporters seem determined to continue repeating the same goddam crap that lost them the election.

#97 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-13 08:33 PM | Reply

"Hi Null. Were a single-payer system adopted in America, what would you propose hospitals do when illegal immigrants appear at their door with a life-threatening illness?"

Father in law broke his leg in Canada, they sent him a tiny joke of a bill, relative to US prices. He wasn't illegal but the principal still applies

#98 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-09-13 08:40 PM | Reply

Like $500.

#99 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-09-13 08:41 PM | Reply

Bernie released his book.

She's not being ripped for releasing a book. It's the subject matter of the book that is being ripped.

He's on TV every night.

He's still in the Senate and was the runner-up in the Dem primary. He caught fire with a portion of the base. Politically, he's very relevant.

Do you see Clinton people attacking him? Calling him a bitch? Complaining that he's a loser who lost to the worst candidate in American History?

Is he going out and blaming everyone but himself for losing to her in the primary? Is he complaining about his loss at all? No, he isn't. He's moved on and is doing everything he can to influence policy.


I think some of the Clinton people have been very gentle toward others on the Left and have focused on beating Trump in the future.

#69 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

FTFY. I think some Clinton people and supporters have been gracious. But I can't even count how many times people like Laura have been ridiculed for not voting for her and she has it tossed in her face every time Team Trump pushes/enacts a policy that Laura would likely oppose.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 08:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"people like Laura"

Like what?

#102 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 08:55 PM | Reply

"Is he going out and blaming everyone but himself "

You prove you're just another "Laura" spouting off folk wisdom and slogans without ever actually having any knowledge.

The list of the folks with your qualifications weighing in on the issue is very long.

#104 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 08:57 PM | Reply

I want Bernie to shut up. Hillary too.

#105 | Posted by cbob at 2017-09-13 08:58 PM | Reply

Like Laura you ----.

#103 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2017-09-13 08:57 PM | FLAG:

Right. So Laura and nobody.

#106 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 08:59 PM | Reply

Is he going out and blaming everyone but himself for losing to her in the primary?

A lot of his followers certainly are.

#107 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-09-13 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why are Americans so willing to fork over thousands per year to insurance companies but so skiddish about paying essentially the same thing toward a system that is proven to deliver better care, access and results?

#92 | POSTED BY JOE

Lack of test in our government.

I fall into that camp.

Look at our debt and how our government manages money.

Far more importantly, look at our unfunded liabilities. Roughly $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. That is insane.

When I see how irresponsible our government is with its finances the last thing I want to see is a massive increase in government spending.

Maybe, maybe in the long-run it would produce better measurable results, but the transition would be brutal. But I don't trust our government to do the tough things necessary to make it work (substantially raise taxes across the board).

Look at the ACA exchanges. They are a disaster and it's because the individual mandate and the enforcement mechanisms afforded to it are wholly insufficient to coerce the young/healthy to participate in sufficient numbers to make the risk-pool work.

But, had the legislation been sufficiently draconian, it probably wouldn't have passed. "You're going to criminalize someone who doesn't purchase health insurance?" It was a valid question and if the answer had been "yes" that bill probably doesn't pass.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:03 PM | Reply

Most people are pointing their fingers at someone else. That includes both Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. Oh, yeah, and then Jeff J jumps in with his 2 cents of pointing too. :)

#109 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:04 PM | Reply

Bruce,

I have been blamed for Hillary's loss. In the presidential elections prior to '16 I voted for:

Dole
Bush
Bush
Mccain
Romney

I'm a registered Republican.

In '16 I was so disgusted with both candidates that I decided I didn't want to be a Johnson so I voted for Johnson.

I was neverTump. I was also neverHillary. Yet, jaded Hillary supporters went after me because I voted 3rd Party.

Laura is the most obvious example. She's far from the only one though.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:05 PM | Reply

jeff- Laura gets blasted because she said Trump would be better for LGBT folks than Hillary, and that trump was a new york liberal.

Those are words to eat.

#112 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-09-13 09:06 PM | Reply

Fortunately for Democrats, by the time '20 rolls around this in-fighting will be distant history (politically speaking) and the party will likely coalesce around whomever the party nominates.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:07 PM | Reply

Fair enough, Alex.

And if those criticisms were limited to Laura....

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:08 PM | Reply

LoD,

I sent you an email on one of your favorite subjects.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:08 PM | Reply

Laura also claimed Bill and Donald had cooked up the scheme that Donald would run so that Hillary would win (in the conversation they had before the election). Someone like Hans could probably find Laura's quotes assuring us all that Donald/Bill and Hil were all in cahoots to guarantee her victory.

#116 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:08 PM | Reply

"Hillary supporters went after me"

Pretty much nobody cares that much about you. Get over it. Someone was cranky and pissed in your cheerios. It doesn't make a pattern.

#117 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 09:10 PM | Reply

No need to Hans those comments, Gal.

Most who are posting remember them.

I understood where she was coming from given how self-destructive Trump was as a candidate. I just didn't buy into the theory for a slew of other reasons.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:10 PM | Reply

Pretty much nobody cares that much about you. Get over it. Someone was cranky and pissed in your cheerios. It doesn't make a pattern.

#117 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

There is nothing to get over because it never bothered me in the first place.

I am just calling BS on the fiction you are peddling that Clinton supporters have been gracious in defeat. They haven't and I cited myself as an example.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:12 PM | Reply

LoD,
I sent you an email on one of your favorite subjects.
#115 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-09-13 09:08 PM

I'm offended, but will read nonetheless.

#120 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-13 09:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"here's hoping your father in law gets gangrene, and dies due to a botched amputation, lol. Good times, nothing like mortal injuries in Canada to really take it out of a guy."

Thanks! He healed just fine in no time!

#121 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-09-13 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura also claimed Bill and Donald had cooked up the scheme that Donald would run so that Hillary would win (in the conversation they had before the election). Someone like Hans could probably find Laura's quotes assuring us all that Donald/Bill and Hil were all in cahoots to guarantee her victory.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:08 PM | Reply

No need to Hans it. I posted it and that was the plan but it backfired because Hillary was so unlikable.

#122 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 09:17 PM | Reply

Most people are pointing their fingers at someone else. That includes both Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. Oh, yeah, and then Jeff J jumps in with his 2 cents of pointing too. :)

#109 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2017-09-13 09:04 PM | FLAG:

Yeah, they are both losers. I voted for Hillary and think she'd have been infinitely better than the lunatic currently terrorizing the White House. And I still think the Trump team colluded with Russia. Still...neither Clinton nor Sanders can rescue the Democrats (and the nation) from the criminally insane GOP of today. A fresh slate is required.

#123 | Posted by cbob at 2017-09-13 09:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Alex and Gal both make good points.

Laura opened herself to this given how outspoken she was against Hillary in the general and some of her other comments - comments she is comfortable owning.

If the election blame were mostly limited to her, I'd agree with Bruce, but it hasn't been.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 09:21 PM | Reply

#122 Sorry, Laura, Lady Cleo you ain't.

#125 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:22 PM | Reply

Every time Hillary speaks she makes the next election harder for the Democrats. Keep it up H!
What is the difference between winning and whining? There is no "H' in winning.

#126 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 09:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Caution- she may cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.

#127 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2017-09-13 09:38 PM | Reply

#122 Sorry, Laura, Lady Cleo you ain't.

#125 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's Miss Cleo at least get your condescension correct. Secondly

www.bbc.com

#128 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 09:39 PM | Reply

jeff- Laura gets blasted because she said Trump would be better for LGBT folks than Hillary, and that trump was a new york liberal.

Those are words to eat.

#112 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-09-13 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

His record on LGBT issues was ten times better than Hillary's. Do the research for yourself.

#129 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 09:41 PM | Reply

#129 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

bull-pucky

#130 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-09-13 09:46 PM | Reply

#128 You believe Trump is a Democratic secret agent but not a Russian secret agent. Interesting that.

#131 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:50 PM | Reply

"It's Miss Cleo at least get your condescension correct."

Miss Cleo. Thanks for the correction. When it comes to condescension, you are a mistress of the trade.

#133 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:52 PM | Reply

A fresh slate is required.

#123 | POSTED BY CBOB AT 2017-09-13 09:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes. But who?

The purity test worries me.

The idea the candidate can only raise money from small donors

The idea the candidate must not speak to rich people. Must not speak to businesses.

The idea the candidate must hate industries as a whole. Hate banking etc...

Who could ever pass?

#134 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 09:52 PM | Reply

The idea the candidate must not speak to rich people. Must not speak to businesses.

No one said the candidate can't speak to rich people. The complaint was how Hillary refused to release the transcripts to her speech.

#135 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 10:03 PM | Reply

#128 You believe Trump is a Democratic secret agent but not a Russian secret agent. Interesting that.

#131 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never said a word about the Russia scandal. If I did I don't remember it. Nice try however.

#136 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 10:32 PM | Reply

#136 Not commenting is a comment.

#137 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 10:42 PM | Reply

Yes. But who?

The purity test worries me.

The idea the candidate can only raise money from small donors

The idea the candidate must not speak to rich people. Must not speak to businesses.

The idea the candidate must hate industries as a whole. Hate banking etc...

Who could ever pass?

#134 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not a purist. I think Hillary had her own special baggage.

But who? I am not sure. Preferably somebody under 70. Somebody who understands social media, Joe Six-Pack, and BLM at least as much as Wall Street.

#138 | Posted by cbob at 2017-09-13 10:44 PM | Reply

#136 Not commenting is a comment.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 10:42 PM | Reply

WOW You're out of your mind saying not commenting is a comment. That's crazy.

#139 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 10:48 PM | Reply

#139 As in: your silence speaks volumes.

#140 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 11:07 PM | Reply

Or as in: your silence speaks louder than words.

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 11:08 PM | Reply

Or as in: your silence speaks louder than words.

#141 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

When it comes to the Russia-collusion thing I think prudence is in order. We have a well-funded investigation into it lead by a guy with some bipartisan-cred. I think Laura's 'wait-and-see' approach is completely reasonable on this subject - heck, it's my approach as well.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The complaint was how Hillary refused to release the transcripts to her speech.
#135 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-09-13 10:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Bull. When they were leaked, nobody read them or talked about them because they were positive.

#143 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:38 PM | Reply

Jeff, is that Laura's position? Good to know.

#144 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-13 11:40 PM | Reply

There's enough evidence on Russia to make many decisions.

#145 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-13 11:52 PM | Reply

"Ironic how the person you chose to compare Hillary to, is Trump.
They're more alike than anyone acknowledges."

That's exactly the kind of BS thinking that got us where we are today. Hillary Clinton, like most politicians, has a big ego. She is not, however, a malignant narcissist. Donald Trump is.

#146 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 06:57 AM | Reply

the most admired woman in America for a record 20 years. What were we thinking?

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE

Guess not

#147 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 07:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary Clinton, like most politicians, has a big ego. She is not, however, a malignant narcissist. Donald Trump is.

#146 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Back to the book signing event: Finally, just before noon, the crowd erupted, chanting "HILL-AR-EE! HILL-AR-EE!" as Clinton sauntered in, casually absorbing the adulation, giving the crowd her patented smile and royal wave.
Amid wild applause, Clinton made her way up to a raised platform, and then . . . she sat down and started signing. No hello to the crowd, no thanks for the hours of waiting -- let alone decades of support -- no apology for or acknowledgment of being an hour late, or losing the most consequential election in American history. Not a single word. She just started signing.

nypost.com

cold fish

#148 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 07:18 AM | Reply

Yeah, what a cold fish and evil bitch Hillary is:

Hillary Clinton Treats Supporters To Pizza Before Book Signing At Barnes & Noble

The former Democratic presidential nominee appeared at the store to promote her new book about the 2016 presidential campaign "What Happened," which was officially released Tuesday.

Clinton didn't offer public remarks but signed copies of her book for several hundred supporters.

Some supporters began lining up Monday afternoon and camped outside the store overnight for the chance to meet the former secretary of state.

Clinton surprised those in line with a special late-night delivery from Joe's Pizza.

Aurora De Lucia, who was there when the pizza was delivered, was giddy after having her book signed.

"I told her that I downloaded her book at midnight and that I've been reading and crying and I thanked her for the pizza that she sent us last night," De Lucia said. "It was just lovely to shake her hand. She is the inspiration of a lifetime, so it was worth the time to meet her for sure."

Juan Cuba was second in line. He secured his spot at 4 p.m. Monday.

"She said, ‘Thank you so much,' she said, ‘We have a long way to go,'" Cuba said.

newyork.cbslocal.com

#149 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 07:29 AM | Reply

Wait for hours, sweat it out, love her all you want -- she's popping in for your cash, nothing more.

nypost.com

#150 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 07:56 AM | Reply

#149 exactly.

#151 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-14 08:04 AM | Reply

The pizza toppings were made of her enemies and served to her "Campers" who were probably crisis actors.

#152 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 08:06 AM | Reply

The pizza toppings were made by underage sex slaves at Hillary's pedo sex ring and shipped up from DC.

#153 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 08:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary, you lost. Get over it and just shut up already. You have nothing to gain and you only are hurting your party. You are 10x worse than Sore/Loserman were in 2001. She explains whose fault it was in her latest book:

"The list of people and entities that Hillary DOES blame is so long, it's frankly laughable.
It was James Comey's fault: 'If not for the dramatic intervention of the FBI director in the final days,' she wails, 'we would have won the White House.'

It was Vladimir Putin's fault for waging a 'personal vendetta' against her. 'I never imagined that he would have the audacity to launch a massive covert attack against our own democracy,' she rants, 'right under our noses – and that he'd get away with it.'

It was 'odious hypocrite' Julian Assange's fault for supposedly aiding and abetting Putin. She says of the Wikileaks founder: 'I had to face not just one America-bashing misogynist, but three. I'd have to get by Putin and Assange as well.'

It was Barack Obama's fault: 'I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack,' she snarls. 'Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat at the time.' She also slams Obama for telling her to 'lay off' Bernie Sanders' I felt like I was in a straightjacket.'

It was Sanders' fault for 'resorting to innuendo and impugning my character'. Hillary spat: 'His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign.'"

Con't...

#154 | Posted by rjm53 at 2017-09-14 11:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It was also Sanders supporters' fault for 'harassing my supporters online' with attacks that were 'ugly and more than a little sexist.'

It was GOP leader Mitch McConnell's fault for putting partisanship ahead of national security: 'McConnell knew better,' Hillary slammed, 'but he did it anyway.'

It was the mainstream media's fault: 'Many in the political media can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump,' she fumed, 'from providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people's lives combined.'

In particular, she says it was the New York Times' fault for reporting on her emails in such a relentless way that it 'affected the outcome of the election.'

It was Today Show host Matt Lauer's fault for grilling her during a NBC presidential debate about her emails to the extent she was 'ticked off' and 'almost physically sick'.

It was Fox News' fault for 'turning politics into an evidence-free zone of seething resentment.'
It was Green Party candidate Jill Stein's fault: 'There were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result, just like Ralph Nader did in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000.'

It was men's fault: 'Sexism and misogyny played a role in the election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won.'

It was women's fault, especially those who joined anti-Trump marches after he won: 'I couldn't help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election.'

It was white people's fault: 'He (Trump) was quite successful in referencing a nostalgia that would give hope, settle grievances, for millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others ... millions of white people.'

It was black people's fault, especially Black Lives Matter protestors who questioned her commitment to their cause and heckled her at events. Hillary accuses them of being 'more interested in disruption and confrontation than in working together to change policies.'

It was former Vice President Joe Biden's fault for saying the Democratic Party 'did not talk about what it always stood for' in the campaign, which was 'how to maintain a burgeoning middle class.' Hillary seethes: 'I find this fairly remarkable, considering Joe himself campaigned for me all over the Midwest and talked plenty about the middle class.'

It was her aide Huma Abedin's husband Anthony Weiner's fault for the teenage sexting scandal that blew up just before election day – forcing the emails back into public focus.

It was the 'godforsaken' Electoral College's fault because she won the meaningless popular vote by three million.

Finally, it was history's fault: 'The problems started with history,' she insists. 'It was exceedingly difficult for either party to hold onto the White House for more than eight years in a row.'"

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

#155 | Posted by rjm53 at 2017-09-14 11:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#155 newsworthy. HRC's loss was everyone's fault except HRC. According to HRC. And THAT is why she needs to shut up about it.

#156 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-14 12:16 PM | Reply

"It was the 'godforsaken' Electoral College's fault because she won the meaningless popular vote by three million."

I heard her say in an interview that she has been against the EC since 2000 when Gore lost.

seethes/fumes/spat/rants/snarls/slammed: Someone relied heavily on a Thesaurus when writing this.

#157 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 12:29 PM | Reply

If I ever run for president and I beat my primary opponent and my opponent in the general by over 7 million votes I will have a lot of **** to say.

#158 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-14 12:29 PM | Reply

The attempts to silence Clinton are in fact just more proof that the misogyny she writes about in What Happened was not imagined, and is still working against her.

Posted by BruceBanner

This exact accusation is why clinton supporters need to shut up.

Opposition to hillary is not sexism. That accusation only makes more people vote republican.

If elizabeth warren had been the candidate instead of hillary, elizabeth warren would be president.

#159 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:02 PM | Reply

I don't want hillary to shut up entirely. I just want her to shut up until she's willing to admit that maybe taking a bunch of bribes from banks and corporations is a bad idea if you want to be the "liberal" nominee.

Until she admits that obvious reality, she's just spouting BS rationalizations and excuses.

#160 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:05 PM | Reply

"If elizabeth warren had been the candidate instead of hillary, elizabeth warren would be president."

There you go again making stuff up. Look, I like Warren very much and more than Clinton, but there is no guarantee she would be president today had she been the nominee.

#161 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:07 PM | Reply

There you go again making stuff up. Look, I like Warren very much and more than Clinton, but there is no guarantee she would be president today had she been the nominee.

#161 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Let's see... all the clinton votes, plus all the bernie votes....duhhhhhr how does addition work again?

#162 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:18 PM | Reply

#162 You are discounting Russian interference again. It was real, and we have no way of knowing how it would have impacted on a Warren candidacy.

#163 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:24 PM | Reply

"Let's see... all the clinton votes, plus all the bernie votes....duhhhhhr how does addition work again?"

I'm also not sure Warren would have gotten all of Clinton's votes. She may have been too progressive for some Clinton voters.

#164 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:27 PM | Reply

I'm also not sure Warren would have gotten all of Clinton's votes. She may have been too progressive for some Clinton voters.

#164 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

If being moderate was what people found appealing about hillary, she'd have won.

#165 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:28 PM | Reply

She did win the primaries.

#166 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:31 PM | Reply

She did win the primaries.

#167 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:31 PM | Reply

Yup. And now she's doing her best to prevent people from realizing why that was a bad vote.

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:39 PM | Reply

I have no way to prove it, but I have no doubt Warren would have beaten Trump in both the popular vote and the EC. The reasons voters were turned off by HRC in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. were unique to HRC.

#169 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-14 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What do Hillary Clinton and Colin Kaepernick have in common? They both thought they would have new jobs this year. [📢📢airhorn 📢📢]

#170 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-14 01:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

She did win the primaries.

#166 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2017-09-14 01:31 PM | FLAG:

She did win the primaries.

#167 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

She did rig the primaries.

She did rig the primaries.

#171 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2017-09-14 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If we ever got around to making our elections fair Republicans would win very little of the time. When you cheat you win but don't pretend there is any honor in such wins.

#172 | Posted by danni at 2017-09-14 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump Crooked Hillary Clinton blames everybody (and every thing) but herself for her election loss. She lost the debates and lost her direction!
27,671 replies

Hillary Clinton‏ @HillaryClinton
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
If you didn't like that book, try this one -- some good lessons in here about working together to solve problems. Happy to send a copy. [photograph of It Takes a Village]

#173 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 02:16 PM | Reply

Weird how she doensn't mention people like Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman or Larry Wilmore, all of whom played a much bigger role in pushing swing state voters away from Democrats than anyone else mentioned so far. She had so many opportunities to disavow people who behaved like that, but she refused to take a position for fear of offending the obnoxious twits.

#174 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-14 02:23 PM | Reply

#171 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH

The clinton types love to ignore that detail since it negates the effectiveness of their blaming Russia in the general.

#175 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-09-14 02:25 PM | Reply

Weird how she doensn't mention people like Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman or Larry Wilmore, all of whom played a much bigger role in pushing swing state voters away from Democrats than anyone else mentioned so far. She had so many opportunities to disavow people who behaved like that, but she refused to take a position for fear of offending the obnoxious twits.

#174 | Posted by sentinel

All those people wouldn't have had anything to attack her for if she hadn't built a long career of mistakes, flip flops, scandals, and bribery.

If you do things that disgust people, you don't get to blame THEM for being disgusted.

#176 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 02:28 PM | Reply

All those people wouldn't have had anything to attack her for if she hadn't built a long career of mistakes, flip flops, scandals, and bribery.

Her husband had similar issues, but he at least had the political acumen to smooth those issues over. Until he got himself impeached, anyway.

#177 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-14 02:40 PM | Reply

As a conservative, I love it when she talks. No way would I try to shut her up. I like it when she makes public appearances too. If I could talk to her, I'd encourage her to run again in 2020. Those democrats trying to shut her up are just fascists who don't believe in free speech.

#178 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-09-14 02:51 PM | Reply

As a conservative, I love it when she talks. No way would I try to shut her up. I like it when she makes public appearances too. If I could talk to her, I'd encourage her to run again in 2020. Those democrats trying to shut her up are just fascists who don't believe in free speech.

#178 | Posted by jestgettinalong

^Hillary supporters, take note.

#179 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 02:55 PM | Reply

I bet Jest would like it if Elizabeth Warren wrote a book and went out on a book tour, too. So what?

#180 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 02:56 PM | Reply

I also bet Jest would encourage Warren to run in 2020. Again, so what?

#181 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 02:58 PM | Reply

I also bet Jest would encourage Warren to run in 2020. Again, so what?

#181 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

I bet he wouldn't. Repubs want dems to run weak candidates like hillary, not strong ones like warren.

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the audio version of the book read by Hill herself!"

you fill in the reply

#183 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 03:43 PM | Reply

fingers on the chalkboard
dental drill
ESPN

#184 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-09-14 03:46 PM | Reply

We cannot change the past. We can change the future.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter

Unless you are the Texas School Board then you can rewrite (change) history to suit your ideology and your religious dogma.

www.cbsnews.com

www.theguardian.com

www.npr.org

#185 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-09-14 03:55 PM | Reply

No one said the candidate can't speak to rich people. The complaint was how Hillary refused to release the transcripts to her speech.

#135 | Posted by ClownShack

I don't recall any Presidential candidate releasing (or even being asked to release) transcripts of their speeches, or their college transcripts, or their birth certificates prior to the last 3 elections (and only being demanded by one side). How did we manage to get through 200+ years without it? And BTW, where are Trump's tax returns?

#186 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 04:10 PM | Reply

Which candidates released their tax returns?

#187 | Posted by danni at 2017-09-14 04:28 PM | Reply

#186 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

She wouldn't have needed to if she hadn't claimed to have different public and private policy ideals.

#187 | POSTED BY DANNI

Which candidates besides trump ever claimed to be a multibillionaire while not having such a high documented worth by any source that tracks such metrics?

#188 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-09-14 04:36 PM | Reply

I'm also not sure Warren would have gotten all of Clinton's votes. She may have been too progressive for some Clinton voters.

#164 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

WOW Then people here complain about me not voting for Hillary when people like Gal Tuesday writes this stuff it makes me laugh.

#189 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-14 04:44 PM | Reply

Laura likes to laugh. Laughing's good. :)

#190 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 04:51 PM | Reply

strong ones like warren.

#182 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-09-14 03:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Liawatha etc... Trump would have made easy game of her

#191 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-14 04:54 PM | Reply

I have no way to prove it, but I have no doubt Warren would have beaten Trump in both the popular vote and the EC. The reasons voters were turned off by HRC in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. were unique to HRC.
#169 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2017-09-14 01:45 PM

Hillary was the second most disliked candidate in modern history. It's funny watching diehard supporters of the --------- Democrat candidate in modern history claim everyone else would have been "easy game" for Trump when none of them had her massive negatives. (or cankles)

#192 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-14 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She wouldn't have needed to if she hadn't claimed to have different public and private policy ideals.
#188 | Posted by IndianaJones

You mean a politician said different things to different audiences? GASP! Where have you been for the last 60 years?

There is nothing that people criticize Hillary about that isn't true of 90% of people who ever ran for President. People have been programmed to hate the Clintons (obviously, that includes Hillary) for the last 25 years by the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" (yes, it does exist).

She's "untrustworthy"? How? What did she do?

She's "corrupt"? What "play" did somebody get for "pay" from her (before you say "uranium", that's been debunked)?

I've asked lots of people why they hate her, and they can't give a coherent answer, they just "do". That means, they've never really thought about it, they just accept it because they were told to by a source (r/w talk, Repub politicians, church communities, peer groups) they trust. That's also why they don't believe in AGW, not because they actually know what the science behind it is.

They've been taught to make decisions based on "feelings" rather than rational reasoning, and they are easily manipulated by authoritarian leaders. Somewhere between 20% and 30% of the population is neurologically "wired" to follow authoritarians. That's not likely to change any time soon. The the problem (for the rest of us) is that they can be "herded" to the polls to vote for their "leaders" while "libertarians" and "progressives" spend all their time arguing over who is "purer" and end up staying home because their ideal candidate is not running.

The ability to drive turn-out, together with efforts to suppress Dem votes and gerrymander districts, is why they have majority power while receiving less total votes than Dems at all levels from State Houses, to Congress, to POTUS.

Trump is President only because the Electoral College was put in place to balance the power between the slave-holding states (with smaller white populations) and the more urban northern states that didn't directly benefit from slavery.

The Constitution is flawed as a result of having to accommodate the desires of the southern slave-owning Planter class. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments attempted to correct this, but the resistance never ended, and the Civil War never ended, it just went from a "hot" war to a "cold" war.

In the end, Lincoln's anti-slavery Republican party is now being run by the Confederates.

#193 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Liawatha etc... Trump would have made easy game of her

#191 | Posted by BruceBanner

Nope. None as easy as hillary.

Its so funny to keep hearing this "If trump had gone after bernie... if trump had gone after warren..." crap.

As if he had some special ability to take down people. He calls them a name and makes it stick. That's not why he beat hillary. He beat her because she has a long record of bad judgement and borderline corruption. Warren and Sanders didn't. Trump would call sanders a commie and call warren an indian liar, but to think that would have had the same effect as hillary's decades of scandals is pure fantasy.

#194 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 05:33 PM | Reply

"libertarians" should be "progressives"

#195 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 05:35 PM | Reply

"In the end, Lincoln's anti-slavery Republican party is now being run by the Confederates."

It's actually fairly normal for a group to come full circle and oppose the thing it once supported.

Like the American Medical Association was founded in the 1800s to help Americans get health care.

A century later they opposed Single Payer and invented the marketing term Socialized Medicine to oppose FDR's plan to insure everyone.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 05:36 PM | Reply

Let me try that one more time: "libertarians" should have been "liberals".

#197 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 05:36 PM | Reply

I've asked lots of people why they hate her, and they can't give a coherent answer, they just "do".

#193 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Then you haven't asked the right people.

I'll make it clear for you - people hate her because she has a long record of screw ups. Iraq, patriot act, emails, clinton foundation. She seems to always have to do something the WRONG way, before finally getting it right.

We hate her because she is an expert at playing a disgusting pay-for-play rigged game of politics.
That's fine if you're a republican, who are expected to be pawns of big business, but for a democrat it is horrible. It destroys the democrats' claim to be the party of the people.

We hate her because she told liberals to "be realistic" instead of fighting for liberal values. Repubs try to please their base be promising the moon and they win, liberals tell their base to be realistic and they lose.

Most of all, we hate her because she screwed up the biggest chance real liberalism had in decades. Because we had a shot to step outside the system of legal bribery that our elections usually are. Where the PEOPLE fund a candidate who will owe THEM favors and work to please THEM, instead of working to please the DONORS. Her approach of "gotta take the corporate bribes to be competitive" handed the republicans the biggest gift they could ever want - the CHANGE label.

Bernie had a record of being RIGHT about everything WAY before clinton. The drug war, iraq, wall street regulation, campaign finance, health care...he's been right about ALL of it. But he got run over by clinton who was WRONG about all of it.

She ran on "status quo". A status quo that many people see as corrupt and failing.
Repubs became the agents of change and they won.

We hate her because she's a fake liberal who defeated a real liberal, the first one we've had in a long time.

#198 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 05:43 PM | Reply

A century later they opposed Single Payer and invented the marketing term Socialized Medicine to oppose FDR's plan to insure everyone.

#196 | Posted by snoofy

It's worse than that. The right-wingers have been taught to be suspicious of anything that has the word "social" in it. Libertarians don't even acknowledge that there is any such thing as "society" or that they owe any allegiance or responsibility to one. Thus the pejorative "SJW".

What could possibly be wrong with being a "warrior" for social justice? They don't have a problem with "warriors" for criminal justice, AKA cops. Republicans fought against "Social" security, they demonize "social" workers. They hate the idea of socialism even though the early Christians were, essentially, communists. The closest thing we have today to the early Christian communities are the Israeli kibbutz and "hippy" communes. Jesus was no capitalist.

Again, it's not rational. It's emotional.

#199 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We hate her because she's a fake liberal who defeated a real liberal, the first one we've had in a long time.

#198 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

She still would have been a lot better than what we've got! Look, I love Bernie. I watched him every Friday on Thom Hartmann's "Brunch with Bernie" taking calls from the public(!) for the better part of 10 years. I voted for him in the primary and I would have loved to have him as President. But I didn't let my bitterness about how he was treated by the Democratic party and the media cause me to throw away my vote on a third-party or stay home. It was a fact that only one of two people was going to be POTUS. Trump was unacceptable! That should have been sufficient.

#200 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-09-14 05:53 PM | Reply

Trump was unacceptable! That should have been sufficient.

#200 | Posted by WhoDaMan

I'm with you. You have to vote for the lesser of two evils. But you can't just apply that to the general election.

But the fact that hillary couldnt beat trump should be taken by hillary supporters and the DNC as a CLEAR SCREAMING MESSAGE from the american people.

Hearing them make every excuse not to learn their lesson is disgusting and depressing.

All I want for christas is to hear hillary and her die hard supporters say that taking money from bankers and corporations isn't a good idea for a liberal candidate. Not make excuses or call people sexist if they're not willing to overlook corruption and bribery.

#201 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 06:10 PM | Reply

- But you can't just apply that to the general election.

You can apply the condition, as Chomsky does, that the candidate has to be competitive to be considered qualified as a LEV candidate. Sanders didn't qualify as such in the primary, much as Stein didn't qualify as any more than a protest vote, not a legit candidate for LEV in the general.

Sanders lost in a 4 million vote landslide, so he was never a competitive candidate. Some of us recognized that early on, some still don't get it.... and will continue not to get it.

- a CLEAR SCREAMING MESSAGE

Still hysterical about a statistical fluke of a loss;.057 percent of the vote in the EC, I see. As if that means the candidate and or the polices were horrible. They weren't.

They weren't to most people, only to HDS sufferers.

They came very close to doing something that had never been done before; electing a woman Pres, who was the first woman ever nominated by a major party.

And they came very close, within a statistical fluke, of being the first since FDR to win a 3rd Dem term, and the second since Andrew Jackson in 1828.

The historical odds were against were overwhelming, and it almost happened anyway.

Despite all the hysteria.

#202 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-14 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You can apply the condition, as Chomsky does, that the candidate has to be competitive to be considered qualified as a LEV candidate.

#202 | Posted by Corky

haha as soon as I read CHOMSKY I knew it was a corky post before i even scrolled down.

Who decides "competitive?" You? Hillary? The DNC's corporate donors?

You dismissing sanders as not competitive has as much validity as you dismissing hillary haters as sexist.

#203 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 06:44 PM | Reply

Still hysterical about a statistical fluke of a loss;.057 percent of the vote in the EC, I see. As if that means the candidate and or the polices were horrible. They weren't.

#202 | Posted by Corky

AGAINST DONALD THE ----- GRABBER TRUMP.

She should have destroyed him. If you can't beat trump in a landslide, you and your policies are horrible.

#204 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 06:46 PM | Reply

Oh Good God gravy Marie Chomsky BS still. If I see his name one more time I'm gonna scream.

#205 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-14 06:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-Who decides "competitive?"

The voters when they choose a candidate... particularly obviously in a 4 million vote landslide.

And Chomsky wrote the Rules for LEV.

chomsky.info

- She should have destroyed him. If you can't beat trump in a landslide, you and your policies are horrible.

Sanders should have destroyed her. If you can't beat a "corporate puppet" Clinton you and your policies are horrible.

See how that werks?

Sanders should have won, according to you, but lost in a landslide. Hillary lost in a statistical fluke, but, again according to your, that is a major failure worthy of hysteria.

#206 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-14 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is President only because the Electoral College was put in place to balance the power between the slave-holding states (with smaller white populations) and the more urban northern states that didn't directly benefit from slavery.
#193 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2017-09-14 05:33 PM

Yep, that's why Trump won Wisconsin and Michigan.

#207 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-14 06:59 PM | Reply

Hillary lost in a statistical fluke

LMAO The electoral college is now a statistical fluke. Who would have known?

#208 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-14 07:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sanders should have destroyed her. If you can't beat a "corporate puppet" Clinton you and your policies are horrible.

See how that werks?

Sanders should have won, according to you, but lost in a landslide. Hillary lost in a statistical fluke, but, again according to your, that is a major failure worthy of hysteria.

#206 | Posted by Corky

Not the same.

Sanders was a massive underdog. Fighting her corporate bribery warchest with tiny donations from average americans. Fighting her name recognition. Fighting the Corporate-reliant DNC. And she still struggled to beat him, only surging ahead in states which dems never win in the general election.

Trump was the underdog too.

She struggled to beat one underdog, then got beat by the second one. If you get beat by a corrupt disgusting underdog like trump, something is seriously wrong with you.

#209 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 07:23 PM | Reply

-204

So, let's compare our voting records for evaluation. You voted in the primary for someone who lost by a landslide, and I voted for someone who won by a landslide.

You voted in the general for someone who wasn't even on the electoral radar screen as a throw-away protest vote instead of voting to try to help keep Trump out of office, and I voted for someone who would be Pres now, against all historical odds, if not for a statistical fluke of a difference in the EC.

Yet people should be in awe of your political voting prowess?

- why Trump won Wisconsin and Michigan.

According to his voters, they voted for Trump because they felt "oppressed" as white people, and had a lot of "cultural anxiety", not for any specific economic reasons; Clinton won the voters that said they voted for economic reasons.

So, the hoods are off.

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-14 07:25 PM | Reply

- If you get beat by a corrupt disgusting underdog like trump, something is seriously wrong with you.

No, something is wrong with the infinitesimal fraction of Trump voters who feel "oppressed" by their "cultural anxiety" that provided a statistical fluke that you think is some kind of sea change.

#211 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-14 07:28 PM | Reply

--"cultural anxiety"

lmao

#212 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-14 07:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

No, something is wrong with the infinitesimal fraction of Trump voters who feel "oppressed" by their "cultural anxiety" that provided a statistical fluke that you think is some kind of sea change.

It'll be interesting to see what the mid-season election results mean. I don't know the answer. But I do know that if the Dems don't show improvement, they're toast. If I had to make a bet, I'll bet toast.

#213 | Posted by Ray at 2017-09-14 07:41 PM | Reply

You voted in the general for someone who wasn't even on the electoral radar screen as a throw-away protest vote instead of voting to try to help keep Trump out of office, and I voted for someone who would be Pres now, against all historical odds, if not for a statistical fluke of a difference in the EC.

Yet people should be in awe of your political voting prowess?

#210 | Posted by Corky

Yup. Because I didn't support the status quo candidate in a CHANGE election.
So I'm already miles ahead of anyone who did.
If you wanted to keep trump out of office, you should have supported the candidate who polled better against him.

The historical odds are worse against a candidate who rejects corporate bribery than they are against someone with ovaries. There are plenty of people with ovaries in government. Finding someone who rejects plutocracy is a lot harder.

#214 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 07:44 PM | Reply

Wow, what a thread.

Okay....Hillary doesn't need to shut up.

Her minions do.

#215 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-14 07:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Any truth to this report? I don't know. Food for thought. Dems better hope there's not truth here because nothing is being done to prevent the same thing from happening in 2018 or 2020:

The Republican Sabotage of the Vote Recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin

www.truth-out.org

#216 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 08:23 PM | Reply

Above linked to article found through:

Unhack the Vote

"We have the right to vote. We have the right to have our vote counted correctly."

www.unhackthevote.com

twitter.com

Can't vouch for the material at these sites. Rumor has it the info being collected is being given to the Senate. Can't vouch for that either.

#217 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 08:29 PM | Reply

"She struggled to beat one underdog, then got beat by the second one. If you get beat by a corrupt disgusting underdog like trump, something is seriously wrong with you."

She beat one by 4 million and the other by 3 million votes, and that's a struggle?

#218 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-09-14 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Ah, the old "the loser won" mind trick? Don't you ----- tire of that losing hand?

#219 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-09-14 08:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#212

Good times all around, lol.

#220 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-14 09:11 PM | Reply

#219 | Posted by 101Chairborne

It being old doesnt make it not true.

Do you think it makes sense that the person who gets less votes should be the winner?

I think most 8 year olds could tell you it doesn't.

#221 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 09:17 PM | Reply

SpeakPunch: eff the Dems!
RightyTighties: eff the Dems
SpeakPunch: hey now, we're not idiots like you guys.

#223 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-14 10:16 PM | Reply

218 can you idiots please stop beating that poor irrelevant horse?

#224 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-14 10:30 PM | Reply

Looking forward, why do you think the popular vote count is irrelevant?

#225 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-14 10:32 PM | Reply

Because it's a non factor in gaining the WH.

Your question is akin to asking me why I think check mate is irrelevant when we're discussing checkers.

#226 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-14 10:38 PM | Reply

So what's the recipe for gaming the electoral college?

#227 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-14 10:41 PM | Reply

Gaming? Is that supposed to mean winning?

And why are you asking me? There's people out there who make tons of money dreaming up that kind of stuff.

#228 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-14 10:43 PM | Reply

--So what's the recipe for gaming the electoral college?

Well we know what the Democrat recipe is. Give voting rights to illegal immigrants as soon as possible. Starting in swing states. Maryland City just voted to give non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. Expect Democrat-run cities and counties to follow.

#229 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-14 10:50 PM | Reply

"Give voting rights to illegal immigrants as soon as possible."

"State's Rights" allow that, as it turns out.

(However, I'm not familiar with that part of the Democratic platform...)
(The fact that it hasn't happened in California should be your first clue...)

#230 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 10:57 PM | Reply

Oh, it's already happened in San Francisco?
That's awesome!
I'm all for making democracy more representative.
But it's completely understandable to me that others might not see it this way.

I'd be in favor of lowering the voting age too. Maybe 16. Or maybe whatever the age of consent is in your state, that should be the voting age too.

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 11:01 PM | Reply

making democracy more representative
---

Don't like the results? Just import more voters.

#233 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-14 11:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--I'd be in favor of lowering the voting age too. Maybe 16.

Of course you are. The more ignorant the better.

I'm in favor of raising the voting age to 21. Teenagers are stupid, if they have any sense.

#234 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-09-14 11:53 PM | Reply

"Don't like the results? Just import more voters."

The Founders were okay with it.
You're not?

#235 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:39 AM | Reply

"I'm in favor of raising the voting age to 21. Teenagers are stupid, if they have any sense."

So you can fight and die for your country but you can't vote.

I can see why someone of the age of those who send 18 and 21 year olds off to fight and die would be okay with that.

#236 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-15 12:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, we were crazy nominating a former Secretary of State, major-state U.S. Senator and First Lady with over 25 years in public life who was the most admired woman in America for a record 20 years. What were we thinking?

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-09-13 03:01 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 5: So tell us about all her great accomplishments as First Lady, Senator and Sec Of State. Titles mean nothing - accomplishments everything.

#237 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-09-15 12:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"someone of the age of those who send 18 and 21 year olds off to fight and die"

Like ole Hillary when she voted for the Iraq War.

#238 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-15 01:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35 | POSTED BY RCADE

#237 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2017-09-15 12:53 AM | REPLY

Slowest comeback ever.

#239 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-09-15 08:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

"Do you think it makes sense that the person who gets less votes should be the winner?"

Two things:

It's "fewer" not "less".

The name of the country is the United *States*. Does it make sense that a person who wins only 40% of the states is the winner of the country?

#240 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, the hoods are off."

Brilliant strategy to twist the words and attack the majority of voters in swing states. I'm sure you're including people in that group who simply felt being constantly told to check their privilege wasn't the solution their economic problems.

#241 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 09:20 AM | Reply

Get them while you can!
scontent.fbos1-1.fna.fbcdn.net

#242 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-15 09:35 AM | Reply

"Trump was unacceptable! That should have been sufficient."

This is why "Anybody But X" campaigns usually fail. The opponents take it for granted that it voters agree that X is the lesser of two unacceptabilities, and they assume primarily focusing on the flaws of the other candidate will win them the election.

It seems to be totally lost on Hillary supporters that Trump took a lot of strategies out of her husband's playbook, whether it was triangulating by criticizing both parties or goading her into attacking him for behavior her husband was accused of.

#243 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 09:40 AM | Reply

The name of the country is the United *States*. Does it make sense that a person who wins only 40% of the states is the winner of the country?

#240 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2017-09-15 09:08 AM |

It is ONE country. Not a federation of 50 states

*UNITED* States

Does it make sense that the vote of a person in Wyoming should count 3 times as much as the vote of a person in California?

#244 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-15 09:47 AM | Reply

- Finding someone who rejects plutocracy is a lot harder.

Yet you think that the electorate that has put the GOP in charge of the entire gov is all about rejecting plutocracy as their main goal?

They are all about trying to keep what little they have while being fearmongered against minorities as the enemy.

Top voting issues in 2016 election

www.people-press.org

Oddly, "rejecting plutocracy" can't be found anywhere on that list.

#245 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-15 10:15 AM | Reply

Does it make sense that a large number of states covering a large area should count for nothing? How low are you willing to go when it comes to the number or percentage of states that overrule the others? Ten states? Five? Just one?

Many states, including many blue and purple ones, probably would never have joined the union if it wasn't for the EC compromise.

#246 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 10:32 AM | Reply

Funny thang about what happens when you knock Hillary down. She always comes back stronger.

Love the arm chair pig brains trying to measure her against previous candidates etc or...determine what she wasn't getting as if anyone but her has a clue.
Since I started voting. Two republiclown -------- in chief left office in disgrace presiding over economic meltdowns and really really bad war policies. Why at least one of them continued a war to enhance his electability.

The one super popular president left office and somehow immediately had no memory of presiding over one of the most corrupt administrations... as the following administration made sure to pardon anyone able to give testimony.

Seriously people you're idiots and working on fluffing up your 4th bout of disgrace... all the while praying to your zombie god to save your stupid asses from the moozlimz 'n mekseekinz because some coal miners found their job skills didn't carry over to other professions... and you think some old fart disguised in orange is going to save you cause he gets you. Never mind that his career has been a water boy for the truly wealthy. He makes a nice place for them to hang out and cut deals that screw you.That is why he looks so stupid. He is not a innovator or politician.

The Clintons, Carter, Obamas, Gore all moved on to bigger things unfettered by holding office and still have influence over policy... and they are all still doing it... you know its all its part of that "Inconvenient Truth" you can't wrap your mind around.

#247 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2017-09-15 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Seriously people you're idiots"

If only Obama had given a speech telling people this, it might have helped...

#248 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 10:52 AM | Reply

The Clintons, Carter, Obamas, Gore all moved on to bigger things unfettered by holding office and still have influence over policy... and they are all still doing it...
#247 | POSTED BY RIGHTISTRITE AT 2017-09-15 10:42 AM

Carter, Obama, and Gore have. All Clinton is using her free time for is her butt hurt finger pointing tour.

#249 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-09-15 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 05:17 PM | Reply

I look forward in two years to reading about how you hold Trump accountable for his own actions and ineptitude.

#250 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-09-15 11:47 AM | Reply

I don't care if Hillary wants to have reasonable and pragmatic debate/conversation about important issues. But if all she wants to do is complain and point fingers at whomever she thinks is at fault for her loss, she needs to shut up. She and her supporters aren't doing anything but causing division and discontent.

#251 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-09-15 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The name of the country is the United *States*. Does it make sense that a person who wins only 40% of the states is the winner of the country?

#240 | Posted by sentinel

If more people live in those states then it makes perfect sense.

Does it makes sense that a person born on a farm gets far more political influence than a person born in a city?

#252 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 01:31 PM | Reply

Top voting issues in 2016 election

www.people-press.org

Oddly, "rejecting plutocracy" can't be found anywhere on that list.

#245 | Posted by Corky a

Actually it's #1 on the list - ECONOMICS. Plutocracy is the reason economics are so stressful for so many americans. The rich make the rules, buy the government via campaign contributions, avoid accountability, and run the country strictly for their own benefit.

Bernie wanted to change that game. Hillary didn't want to ruin a game she had mastered.

If she wanted to win bernie supporters she could have picked him as her VP. Instead she picked another anonymous uninspiring puppet of the bankers, proving everything liberals feared about her was true.

#253 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 01:49 PM | Reply

www.huffingtonpost.com

Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton's VP
Who needs consumer protections when we have all these job creators?

#254 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 01:57 PM | Reply

"If more people live in those states then it makes perfect sense."

So when does it stop making sense? At 20%? 10%? Less than that?

"Does it makes sense that a person born on a farm gets far more political influence than a person born in a city?"

Is it fair that people born in Texas have far more political influence than those in Rhode Island and Vermont combined? Comparatively they'd have far more than they do now without the EC.

#255 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 02:20 PM | Reply

So when does it stop making sense? At 20%? 10%? Less than that?

"Does it makes sense that a person born on a farm gets far more political influence than a person born in a city?"

Is it fair that people born in Texas have far more political influence than those in Rhode Island and Vermont combined? Comparatively they'd have far more than they do now without the EC.

#255 | Posted by sentinel

A state's population should have zero influence on the power of a person's vote in that state.

One man = one vote.

Not one man in the city = .3 votes
One Man in the country = 1 vote

#256 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 02:22 PM | Reply

This thread is still up? lol. Die already.

#257 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-09-15 02:29 PM | Reply

"If she wanted to win bernie supporters ..."

Reining in the --------- who were attacking them while acting as surrogates for her would have gone a long way, I think. I don't believe most Bernie supporters are purists at all, but what do you expect when a candidate and her surrogates directly attack people and act like she doesn't need their votes in the general? Bill at least knew how to BS people into thinking he was actually listening to them. As a campaigner, Donald was more like Bill Clinton than she was.

#258 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 02:34 PM | Reply

"A state's population should have zero influence on the power of a person's vote in that state."

So are you opposed to each state having two Senators, and the proportion of Representatives each state has in the House not being exactly the same as the proportion of each state's population?

#259 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-09-15 02:38 PM | Reply

So are you opposed to each state having two Senators, and the proportion of Representatives each state has in the House not being exactly the same as the proportion of each state's population?

#259 | Posted by sentinel

Yes, the senate is anti democratic. One way which our government is structured to give advantages to conservatives. Yet they still have to try and prevent their opponents from voting just to compete.

#260 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 03:05 PM | Reply

#253

Yes, dear. When the electorate that has given the entire gov to the GOP says, "economic problems" they are all talking about "rejecting plutocracy". Whatever you say, dear.

Oh, could you get me a beer?

#261 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-15 03:35 PM | Reply

Oh, could you get me a beer?

#261 | Posted by Corky

Beers are for winners. You back losers and never get any smarter about it.

#262 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 03:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You mean a politician said different things to different audiences? GASP! Where have you been for the last 60 years?

#193 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Are you trying to suggest that the current political climate (people don't like two-faced politicians) is irrelevant because of past political climates?

That is hilarious.

#263 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-09-15 05:45 PM | Reply

Beers are for winners. You back losers and never get any smarter about it.

#262 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Give Corky Pruno. That's his speed.

#264 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-15 06:17 PM | Reply

-You back losers

lol, you backed losers in the primary and the general, both of which lost yugely.

I backed a winner in the primary and loser by a statistical fluke in the general.

Which makes me your Daddy.

#264

Give Laura a mirror.

#265 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-15 08:51 PM | Reply

I backed a winner in the primary and loser by a statistical fluke in the general.

#265 | Posted by Corky

You backed a goldman sachs puppet who couldnt even beat the ----- grabber.

LOSER.

You can't admit that there are many americans who are desperate for anti elitist candidates.

DUMB.

You learned nothing from 2016.

STUBBORN.

If you represent a large segment of democrat voters, trump will get 8 years.

#266 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Shouting hysterically only makes it worse.

Especially when you aren't making arguments, just noise.

#267 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-15 09:04 PM | Reply

Especially when you aren't making arguments, just noise.

#267 | Posted by Corky

Interesting.

"Oh, could you get me a beer?

#261 | Posted by Corky"

#268 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-15 09:41 PM | Reply

#261

Also contained an argument.

#269 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-16 10:41 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort