Forum Thread

What was the real reason for Hillary's loss.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 44 of 44 Prev 1 2 3
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Charles Sykes is a pain in the ass. Oooh, life's unfair, get used to it. That same steaming pile of nonsense has been used to justify calcified class stratification for decades. Usually be fools lower down the food chain who think they will someday become rich aka temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

    I don't have an opinion either way because I haven't read the book nor know much about Sykes.

    I just think it's important to be factually correct when you accuse someone of saying something. Accusing Bill Gates of saying something he didn't say and then attacking him for the quote he never actually said is the literal definition of a strawman logical fallacy.

    Facts are important, especially when you are quoting someone.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Back to the topic of the thread -

    What caused Hillary to lose is an outdated electoral system that gives an out sized role to rural white states at the expense of urban multi-ethnic states. She won by three million votes, but still "lost" the election. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

    Every Monday morning quarterback says that she should have reached out to more rural white people; like they are the bellwether of the American populace. I think that's nonsense. She won the popular vote by building a coalition of every race and sex. I don't blame her for not reaching out to the deplorable's who would have never voted for her anyway.

    Instead of blaming her, we should blame the system that allows someone to lose by three million votes yet still "win" an election.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Bill Gates message to the youth: "Don't waste your time voting" in his exact words "life's not fair, get used to it". Did anybody chew him out ? Say what you want but when the world's richest man says voting is a waste of time, people listen. Look at what he said. Don't complain or try to do anything about it. A message he delivered at a high school. Following is a write up by the Jamaican Observer:

    "MICROSOFT’S billionaire Bill Gates recently gave a speech at an American high school at which he spoke about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world."

    Just a quick heads up that neither of these quotes have been said by Bill Gates. Ever.

    The "don't waste your time voting" quote you came up with seems to be an outright fabrication. I can't find any source even accusing Gates of saying that, let alone confirming or contradicting it.

    The "life's not fair" quote was actually written by Charles Sykes in his 1996 book "Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, Or Add."

    "Rule No. 1: Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teen-ager uses the phrase “It’s not fair” 8.6 times a day. You got it from your parents, who said it so often you decided they must be the most idealistic generation ever. When they started hearing it from their own kids, they realized Rule No. 1."

    Charles Sykes

    The fact checking site Snopes.com also researched the claim accusing Gates of saying this and labeled it incorrectly attributed, which is a polite way of saying it's a lie.

    This is why it's important to actually do research and not just blindly accept something you read on the "Jamaican Observer" as fact.

    In my opinion, which is not humble when talking about Charlie Sykes, the man had his own radio show, and I know from listening to him in the past is that he is a radio troll. WTMJ hosted his show, and MSNBC labeled him as a contributor. That's right folks, MSNBC.

    crooksandliars.com/2017/04/charles-syke...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote: In my opinion, which is not humble when talking about Charlie Sykes, the man had his own radio show, and I know from listening to him in the past is that he is a radio troll. WTMJ hosted his show, and MSNBC labeled him as a contributor. That's right folks, MSNBC.

    crooksandliars.com/2017/04/charles-syke...

    I get that. I honestly don't care about Charles Sykes. I don't care if he wrote the best book in the world or if he wrote the worst book in the world. I don't care if he's a radio or internet troll either. All I care about are facts.

    What I was pointing out is that quoting Bill Gates without taking the time to research if he actually said what you're quoting him on only makes you look foolish and someone who is susceptible to believing "alternative facts" (aka lies).

    I have no problem when someone states their opinion about Bill Gates or anyone else, but you lose me when you start attributing words to people who never said them and then berate them for saying words they never said.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Bill Gates message to the youth: "Don't waste your time voting" in his exact words "life's not fair, get used to it". Did anybody chew him out ? Say what you want but when the world's richest man says voting is a waste of time, people listen. Look at what he said. Don't complain or try to do anything about it. A message he delivered at a high school. Following is a write up by the Jamaican Observer:

    "MICROSOFT’S billionaire Bill Gates recently gave a speech at an American high school at which he spoke about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world."

    Just a quick heads up that neither of these quotes have been said by Bill Gates. Ever.

    The "don't waste your time voting" quote you came up with seems to be an outright fabrication. I can't find any source even accusing Gates of saying that, let alone confirming or contradicting it.

    The "life's not fair" quote was actually written by Charles Sykes in his 1996 book "Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, Or Add."

    "Rule No. 1: Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teen-ager uses the phrase “It’s not fair” 8.6 times a day. You got it from your parents, who said it so often you decided they must be the most idealistic generation ever. When they started hearing it from their own kids, they realized Rule No. 1."

    Charles Sykes

    The fact checking site Snopes.com also researched the claim accusing Gates of saying this and labeled it incorrectly attributed, which is a polite way of saying it's a lie.

    This is why it's important to actually do research and not just blindly accept something you read on the "Jamaican Observer" as fact.

    I was totally wrong. I thought I had researched that thoroughly before.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Back to the topic of the thread -

    What caused Hillary to lose is an outdated electoral system that gives an out sized role to rural white states at the expense of urban multi-ethnic states. She won by three million votes, but still "lost" the election. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

    Every Monday morning quarterback says that she should have reached out to more rural white people; like they are the bellwether of the American populace. I think that's nonsense. She won the popular vote by building a coalition of every race and sex. I don't blame her for not reaching out to the deplorable's who would have never voted for her anyway.

    Instead of blaming her, we should blame the system that allows someone to lose by three million votes yet still "win" an election.

    Jared, while acknowledging that the system established by the 18th century oligarchs is in need of revamping we must also acknowledge that your statement re: rural white people is in error. The stupidness of the system does force candidates to spend time at least pretending to be concerned for all the geography even if they don't truly care. We must admit that changing the system would mean ignoring low population states and the people in them or at best paying some visits to the population centers in those states. No, I don't buy it. Change the system, yes, but also admit Clinton screwed up. The coalition you mentioned interestingly did not include a great deal of white women which I find astounding. And it naturally would focus on the geographies that democrats appear to capture almost no matter the election namely urban population centers which also contain much of said coalition by the nature of the tribalism present in the country.

    She lost because she ran a bad campaign, ignored a segment of voters she shouldn't have, ran into the inherent civic laziness prevalent in this country and an archaic system which she and her campaign ignored as part of her poor campaign. It wasn't simply the system because the system has been in place for 200+ years and everybody knows what the idiotic ground rules are.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Back to the topic of the thread -

    What caused Hillary to lose is an outdated electoral system that gives an out sized role to rural white states at the expense of urban multi-ethnic states. She won by three million votes, but still "lost" the election. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

    Every Monday morning quarterback says that she should have reached out to more rural white people; like they are the bellwether of the American populace. I think that's nonsense. She won the popular vote by building a coalition of every race and sex. I don't blame her for not reaching out to the deplorable's who would have never voted for her anyway.

    Instead of blaming her, we should blame the system that allows someone to lose by three million votes yet still "win" an election.

    Jared, while acknowledging that the system established by the 18th century oligarchs is in need of revamping we must also acknowledge that your statement re: rural white people is in error. The stupidness of the system does force candidates to spend time at least pretending to be concerned for all the geography even if they don't truly care. We must admit that changing the system would mean ignoring low population states and the people in them or at best paying some visits to the population centers in those states. No, I don't buy it. Change the system, yes, but also admit Clinton screwed up. The coalition you mentioned interestingly did not include a great deal of white women which I find astounding. And it naturally would focus on the geographies that democrats appear to capture almost no matter the election namely urban population centers which also contain much of said coalition by the nature of the tribalism present in the country.

    She lost because she ran a bad campaign, ignored a segment of voters she shouldn't have, ran into the inherent civic laziness prevalent in this country and an archaic system which she and her campaign ignored as part of her poor campaign. It wasn't simply the system because the system has been in place for 200+ years and everybody knows what the idiotic ground rules are.

    jaredsxtn, Go back to the beginning of the campaign. It wasn't going to be a close election. This conversation was inconceivable then and was laughed and ridiculed at. The Democatic Party was out of touch. If Hillary had promised lots of good paying jobs she would be President today. It took Bernie to open her eyes but by then she appeared too false to take it from Trump. She could never come down from "100 million dollars is not that well off". There was no party for the working class in 2016.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dockadams Wrote: In my opinion, which is not humble when talking about Charlie Sykes, the man had his own radio show, and I know from listening to him in the past is that he is a radio troll. WTMJ hosted his show, and MSNBC labeled him as a contributor. That's right folks, MSNBC.

    crooksandliars.com/2017/04/charles-syke...

    I get that. I honestly don't care about Charles Sykes. I don't care if he wrote the best book in the world or if he wrote the worst book in the world. I don't care if he's a radio or internet troll either. All I care about are facts.

    What I was pointing out is that quoting Bill Gates without taking the time to research if he actually said what you're quoting him on only makes you look foolish and someone who is susceptible to believing "alternative facts" (aka lies).

    I have no problem when someone states their opinion about Bill Gates or anyone else, but you lose me when you start attributing words to people who never said them and then berate them for saying words they never said.

    Well, whether we like it or not, those radio and television trolls helped be the responsible parties for Mrs. Clinton's loss. Those types are the ones who piled on the negativity, along with the person who doesn't have a suit. Not that much of it matters now, it's all water over the dam. I'll be watching and listening to the absurdity from those radio, internet and television trolls while they come out of the woodwork like roaches for the 2018 elections spewing misinformation.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: ... We must admit that changing the system would mean ignoring low population states and the people in them or at best paying some visits to the population centers in those states. No, I don't buy it. Change the system, yes, but also admit Clinton screwed up.

    We already have a system that does that. No candidates visit New York, California, Texas, Illinois, Wyoming, Idaho, or the vast majority of the rest of the country. They just visit the same handful of states every four years while completely ignoring the rest of the country.

    Why should someone's vote in Pennsylvania or Ohio be worth more than someone's vote in Idaho or Oregon? If we completely got rid of the electoral college then candidates would be forced to have a 50 state strategy and not a 5 state strategy.

    lonely bird Wrote: The coalition you mentioned interestingly did not include a great deal of white women which I find astounding. And it naturally would focus on the geographies that democrats appear to capture almost no matter the election namely urban population centers which also contain much of said coalition by the nature of the tribalism present in the country.

    She still won 47 percent of white women and 54 percent of women overall. That only shows that women don't vote in a monolith in the same way men don't vote in a monolith.

    lonely bird Wrote: She lost because she ran a bad campaign, ignored a segment of voters she shouldn't have, ran into the inherent civic laziness prevalent in this country and an archaic system which she and her campaign ignored as part of her poor campaign. It wasn't simply the system because the system has been in place for 200+ years and everybody knows what the idiotic ground rules are.

    All of that may be true, but she still won three million more votes than Donald. Three million more people vote for her yet she still "lost."

    If that happened in any other country our State Department would be throwing a conniption fit and lecturing that country about how democracy is supposed to work. But it's a-ok in our country. I have a difficult time accepting that.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote: ... We must admit that changing the system would mean ignoring low population states and the people in them or at best paying some visits to the population centers in those states. No, I don't buy it. Change the system, yes, but also admit Clinton screwed up.

    We already have a system that does that. No candidates visit New York, California, Texas, Illinois, Wyoming, Idaho, or the vast majority of the rest of the country. They just visit the same handful of states every four years while completely ignoring the rest of the country.

    Why should someone's vote in Pennsylvania or Ohio be worth more than someone's vote in Idaho or Oregon? If we completely got rid of the electoral college then candidates would be forced to have a 50 state strategy and not a 5 state strategy.

    lonely bird Wrote: The coalition you mentioned interestingly did not include a great deal of white women which I find astounding. And it naturally would focus on the geographies that democrats appear to capture almost no matter the election namely urban population centers which also contain much of said coalition by the nature of the tribalism present in the country.

    She still won 47 percent of white women and 54 percent of women overall. That only shows that women don't vote in a monolith in the same way men don't vote in a monolith.

    lonely bird Wrote: She lost because she ran a bad campaign, ignored a segment of voters she shouldn't have, ran into the inherent civic laziness prevalent in this country and an archaic system which she and her campaign ignored as part of her poor campaign. It wasn't simply the system because the system has been in place for 200+ years and everybody knows what the idiotic ground rules are.

    All of that may be true, but she still won three million more votes than Donald. Three million more people vote for her yet she still "lost."

    If that happened in any other country our State Department would be throwing a conniption fit and lecturing that country about how democracy is supposed to work. But it's a-ok in our country. I have a difficult time accepting that.

    That Hillary did not focus or focus enough on the states like Ohio and Wisconsin and ended up losing the electoral vote shows the fallacy of your comment that candidates would have to have a 50 state strategy. Hillary won the popular vote by ignoring smaller states. Hillary phucqued up. She knew the rules which we have both acknowledged should be changed and she paid the price.

    And, yeah, Hillary spent time in California and New York because they are hotbeds for fund raising.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hillary's campaign strategy was fine for what she perceived the obstacle to be. Unfortunately she was clueless to what she had to overcome. In a sane rational world she did fine and ran a good campaign. That she was isolated from input goes with the position. She was too big to fail. Not her fault. They saw Trump decimate the Republicans and were peeing in their pants happy because they thought they were getting to run against the easiest to beat candidate in the history of elections. Her tactitians did what any good loyal tactians would do. Threw out the outlier.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Hillary's campaign strategy was fine for what she perceived the obstacle to be. Unfortunately she was clueless to what she had to overcome. In a sane rational world she did fine and ran a good campaign. That she was isolated from input goes with the position. She was too big to fail. Not her fault. They saw Trump decimate the Republicans and were peeing in their pants happy because they thought they were getting to run against the easiest to beat candidate in the history of elections. Her tactitians did what any good loyal tactians would do. Threw out the outlier.
    Probably true. The problem with charlatans is that those who do not believe in them tend to dismiss them too easily.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I emailed her campaign and posted most of it on her how to beat him. I said to praise him and to support him and to prove it promise to fulfill his promises even more than he could. Tell the people that the Republican Party hates him and won't support him. If elected you will honor his promises of good paying jobs, insurance for everybody ,take care of the veterans. These are all things a Democratic president would do and Trump's own party would fight him tooth and nail. Promise a special appointment in the cabinet for Trump as consultant on how to carry out his ideas. Hillary could spin Trump and he couldn't say a thing without denouncing himself. But she continued to battle him like 15 predecessors. As far as Hillary's future now, she has been beaten by a liberal black man and a white big money conservative. She is on a dead end path unless she revitalized in a totally new direction and concept. She has a tremendous machine, skills and talent. She needs a new instruction manual.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    In her latest book, "What happened?", Hillary surmised that Comey's statement about her emails 11 days prior to the election was the most likely reason that she lost the electoral college - and I agree with her.

    The email "scandal" was bogus from the beginning, but an awful lot of people got suckered in.

    Now it gets interesting.

    It was just revealed that Scott Pruitt has used 4 separate agency email addresses since taking office. It's also well known that he spent $43,000 to install a soundproof booth in his office, even though the building he is housed in already had one of a different floor. On top of all that, he spends a LOT of money on a 24/7 security detail.

    What are the chances that you will hear ANY of this on FOX "news"?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/12/scott-pruitt-has-four-different-epa-email-addresses-lawmakers-want-to-know-why/?utm_term=.c2eba53f00c4