She lost because she is a corrupt, horrible person only out for money and power. She had no interest in America or Americans unless she got something out of it. She used her position for pay to play instead of changing this country for the better in my opinion.
I love how she blames everything but herself. She lost because she isn't a personable person. Have you heard her speak? It's horrible. The only thing that made her appealing was that she was a woman... Because feminism!
There is no proof that Russia tampered with our election. If there is proof, like some say, where is it? Why hasn't it been presented?
If anything, Comey kept her in the running. Despite going on public record stating that Clinton lied in every form during the server investigation, he still recommended she shouldn't be prosecuted. How in hell do you have more than enough evidence that she did some very illegal things and you still give a non-prosecution recommendation? Clinton should have been kicked out of the election early.
I love how she blames Wikileaks. All Wikileaks did was expose her for the criminal she really is. The true blame lies with her. If she hadn't committed the crimes in the first place, there would have been nothing for Wikileaks to find.
Dear Corey, When I followed the link from My2¢ down a couple of levels, there is an article highly suggestive that there may be proof...not that I am enamored of major Network (NBC) accuracy...this article however, is from last December, and maybe not current? Anyway, I copied a sentence for you that I found convincing...do you have a more recent or more accurate source?
Disclosure: I prolly have a liberal bias, but wish to look at all sides. This from December 16 I think it was:
"U.S. intelligence officials now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News."
This article is partially what I mean. They always say something along the lines of "high level of confidence." They don't give specifics and they don't show undeniable proof. The article also mentions that the FBI and other intellegence agencies don't fully endorse the idea that the Russians were involved. My questions are, if there is such a high level of confidence, why don't they release their proof? Also, if they are so confident, why don't the agencies fully endorse that confidence? That's what I'm seeing when I read articles like that.
I apologize if that came off rantish. I didn't mean for it to if it did.
Thank you Corey...presented that way, it certainly seems that such a statement could be very misleading, plus highly divisive - which is NOT what we need right now.
Put a canary in a sealed room with three cats. If the canary is nowhere to be found when you come back in two hours, you can be absolutely sure that one or more of the cats ate the canary.
That is what is meant by a "high level of confidence."
But I don't yet have enough information to "prove" which cat was the culprit.
I don't know whether Putin was the cat that actually ate the bird. Perhaps it was cat # 2 who was just trying to brown-nose Putin.
Narrowing it down to the specific cat may makes some time, but you reasonable infer (with a high level of confidence) that a cat will probably eat a canary if one is handed to him on a silver plater.
Nope. Like Hawk says, Comey helped her stay in the race and all wikileaks did was publish the truth. It's her and the DNC'c fault that Trump, of all freaking people, was the non-establishment winner. SMGDH.
She needs to wake up and own how much she created this mess we have with this guy. How anyone didn't see the Trump win wasn't paying attention. It was easy to see where it was going once the primaries were over.
That is an intriguing last sentence, Glis...I actually expected Hillary to win, and was surprised when she did not...although I myself did not vote for either major candidate this time.
Within the constraints of this aMug medium, can you explain how it was easy to see?
Lot's of reasons but the short list would be: There really wasn't a lot of people in the DNC base that were happy with Hillary and the DNC base is pretty ambivalent to vote when they aren't passionate about a candidate. The passion for Trump by his supporters was much stronger and there was clearly a larger base of passionate Trump supporters as opposed to passionate Hillary supporters So many people assumed that Trump would lose that it was easy to see that more fence sitters for Hillary would stay home while more fence sitters fro trump would go out. Hillary and the DNC were so arrogant and bust trying to grab swing states, red areas, and pandering to identity politics groups that they ignored key blue strongholds. Never turn your back on longtime supporters. Which they did. Hillary's and the DNC's cheating and manipulation in the primaries against Bernie clearly P.O.'ed a lot of Dem voters. The most passionate and idealistic members. The way Hillary and the DNC ignored and downplayed her scandals. Or pretended they didn't even exist. The fact the that based on Bernie's and Trump's performances were in the primaries that the common sentiment in the countries collective consciousness was that people are just sick of political dynasties and people who just live their lives in Washington. So much so that there was gonna be a sizeable group of people with the attitude of " ahh screw it, good or bad, let's just shake it up."
Yes, I said from after the primaries the stupidest thing Hillary did was not put Sanders on as VP. It may have made all the difference. I was very happy when she announced Cain.
The American people wanted and needed a change in a big way, and if Clinton would have won, it would have been another four years of business as usual. Something that didn't sit well with We the People. Not to mention the fact that Hillary was a habitual, pathological liar, hypocrite, and a corrupt person in general. Over the years Hillary honed her skills of blaming everybody and everything else for her own mistakes and ineptitude. The blame game is quite prevalent in the political world and if found in both political parties but there are a few individuals that stand out from the rest. Obama and Clinton being two of them.
Glis, as I mentioned in my answer, the blame game is found in both political parties. The thing is though, when we deflect blame onto others, what we are really doing is shifting our attention on to someone else so that not only is someone else responsible for our issues, but we also don't have to reflect on our part in the problem. Everyone to one degree to another is guilty of that. However politicians are more in the public eye, hence are more exposed for it.
Dear My2¢, I typically would have voted Democratic this time...although my overall history is more red than blue...
But the deciding factor for me was the DNC maneuvering against Sanders...could not abide that. I have not seen data on how many voters were similarly influenced, but I was. I ended up supporting a 3rd party.
* * * Can you give me an online link where she tries to explain, which you consider representative of her explaining?
Your more than welcome. It does sound like at least in your case, she is partially correct as it was Wikileaks that proved the she and DNC was cheating against Sanders. But to mean that is not because of Wikileaks but because of her and the DNC's bad behavior.
Oh Tom! Well my life may be STILL at risk from your tomahawks, because yes we went blue but kicking and screaming!
It's the liberal Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia corridor that carries the brunt of blue; if we went by geography, essentially all of rural, agricultural/ranching Eastern Washington, east of the Cascades, is red - and they are REALLY MAD, too. Washington is a winner-take-all state, and three of our electors actually slipped the traces, refusing to vote for Hillary, instead casting votes for Colin Powell and I think a Native American, too.
Benedict Arnold 