Thread: What Happened to Hillary?

^Sales should be abysmal, as it deserves. Glad to see the back of her very broad pantsuited ass.....too bad to get shed of her we had to end up with the other fat bastard.

The whole day wiped out...
New colors, but old virus...

I haven't known that TD is owned by Hillary...

Originally Posted by longway

I love that woman.

Imagine how you're skin would crawl/tingle (delete as appropriate) if she breathed down your neck... intimidated/celebrated (rinse and repeat)?

It's unfathomable how cult-like the leftards are - so desperate to "win" a token black president or a token woman president, that they will accept any inept imbecile for the job...

Trump is the totally apt response from the electorate to the establishment... a big fat lol at the leftard elite... oh! hear their writhing and screeching! such sublime pain! lollissimo...

Originally Posted by SKkin

I think they've done a spouse swap in the past...



Then even further back here was Hillary, The Donald and the boys in the White House:

So not full of shit at all then - what a surprise.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Indeed...

How someone can receive 2,865,075 more votes than their opponent and still lose an election owing to an antiquated and archaic system is quite stunning.

...and how they can be so shit a candidate that they would even be at risk of that even happening... even that turkey Obama did better... where all dem votes go, eh? She couldn't even beat a halfwit like her old friend Trump!

Jeffrey Lord: Hillary Clinton Is the New David Duke

2934

0

Monica Schipper/Getty Images

by JEFFREY LORD16 Sep 20171,280
Right in character, there was David Duke blaming race for his various election defeats over the years in Louisiana.

Bitterly Duke said that he lost because his GOP opponent in one special election “was quite successful in referencing a nostalgia that would give hope, comfort, settle grievances, for millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others because—”
The interviewer prompted Duke to get to his point: “What you’re saying is millions of black people.” Replied Duke: “Millions of black people, yeah.”
The interview was typical of Duke’s racial pandering and….oh wait. Apologies. Somehow I got this confused. This race card player wasn’t David Duke at all. It was Hillary Clinton.
Yes, you read that right. In an interview with Jane Pauley on CBS Sunday Morning, in which the failed 2016 Democratic Party nominee was promoting her new book What Happened, Clinton actually sounded exactly like former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, blaming her loss on race. The exchange had Clinton saying that Donald Trump “was quite successful in referencing a nostalgia that would give hope, comfort, settle grievances, for millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others because—”
Queried Jane Pauley: “What you’re saying is millions of white people.”

advertisement

To which Clinton assented, saying: “Millions of white people, yeah.”
Newsflash? There is nothing either new or startling here. Clinton is a believer in “identity politics” — the grandchild of slavery and the son of segregation, the latter two racist policies the political fuel for Clinton’s party from its birth, not to mention the later “progressive movement” that was folded into the party by Woodrow Wilson. The latter perhaps the most racist president in American history who celebrated the pro-Ku Klux Klan film Birth of a Nation in the White House when he had some down time from segregating the U.S. government and the U.S. military.
The real problem here is that the mainstream media rolls over for this, giving all those race-card playing progressives a pass. For a reason.
To acknowledge that race is the political fuel of the Left would be to admit that the perpetual charges of racism directed over the decades at everyone from GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in 1964 to Breitbart today are not only flatly untrue but deliberately designed to distract from the real perpetrators whose obsession with race is what runs the Democratic Party and the progressive left.
To see how the Left plays the game one only needs to take a good look at all the recent uproar over not just taking down monuments to various Confederate leaders but going back to the Jefferson Memorial to add information about Jefferson’s ownership of slaves. As Breitbart reported a while back, “the president of the Trust for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. says ‘the physical symbols of American history and democracy will be scrutinized and challenged’ in the near future.”

advertisement

Really?
Sitting in splendor on the Mall is another monument, this one to the president who made it his mission to get the Jefferson Memorial built in the first place. That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Democrat and progressive Roosevelt not only pushed the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts in 1934 to erect the memorial to Jefferson, once funded FDR personally laid the cornerstone for the memorial in 1939 and would dedicate it at its opening on April 13, 1943 — the 200th anniversary of Jefferson’s birthday.
In 1997 President Bill Clinton dedicated the newest memorial on the Mall — this one to FDR himself. And what did Hillary’s husband have to say at that dedication? As seen here, Clinton enthused over and over about all the aspects of FDR’s presidency and career, calling Roosevelt “the greatest President of this great American century.” One FDR accomplishment after another was recalled by Clinton — except one.
Franklin Roosevelt is the president who went out of his way to appoint a lifetime member of the Ku Klux Klan — progressive Democrat and Alabama Senator Hugo Black — to the United States Supreme Court. And why not? Progressives and racism were the peanut butter and jelly of Leftist politics. As a sitting Justice it was Black who, leading the five other FDR Court appointees in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, wrote the opinion that gave a thumbs up to the internment of Japanese-Americans. A decision based not on the Constitution but on race.
Will the Trust for the National Mall add this interesting information to the FDR memorial? We will see. What about adding to the corrective list the segregationist views of the Washington park memorializing former president Lyndon B. Johnson? Or the Potomac-spanning Woodrow Wilson Bridge? Or the Richard B. Russell Senate Office Building — Russell the author of the notorious “Southern Manifesto” that opposed civil rights and desegregation.

advertisement

But the point here is not just that the FDR memorial and all the rest of these Washington monuments ignore both FDR’s Klan relationships and the racist roots of these other monuments/memorials and buildings that dot the Washington landscape. The point is that whether it was Democratic Party founder Jefferson or Jefferson Memorial backer FDR or LBJ, Richard Russell or Bill Clinton in 1997 and Hillary Clinton today, playing the race card while skillfully attributing racism to others is a staple of the American Left. Then, now, and always.
Hillary Clinton may be the latest — but she isn’t the first. Indeed, here is her husband Bill Clinton calling the Trump slogan of “Making America Great Again” racist — even though he himself had used the exact same slogan when he ran for president.
In essence Hillary Clinton, like all of her race card playing predecessors in her party specifically including her husband, is merely the latest to play the race card.
The serious problem here is that the mainstream media doesn’t have the guts to call Hillary out as the new David Duke — or in fact just the latest reincarnation of the rest of the shamefully infamous and always Leftist Party of Race.
Not to worry. In this corner? I will.

advertisement

Jeffrey Lord is an author, columnist, former Reagan White House political director, and former CNN commentator.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/09/16/jeffrey-lord-hillary-clinton-new-david-duke/

Gawd what an evil bitch

Clinton: It's time to abolish the Electoral College

New York (CNN)Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election.

Clinton, in the interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, displayed her animus for fired FBI Director James Comey, reflected on her love for the people -- namely former President Bill Clinton -- who helped her get through the crushing loss and blasted the arcane election body that she believes helped Donald Trump win the presidency.

"I think it needs to be eliminated," Clinton said of the Electoral College. "I'd like to see us move beyond it, yes."

Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, a fact she routinely brings up in her new memoir. But Trump won the Electoral College, a body of 538 members who select the president based on the popular vote in each state, meaning the person who gets the most votes nationally doesn't necessarily win the election.
The Electoral College is just one external factor Clinton blames for her stunning loss to Trump in her newly released memoir, "What Happened." Clinton also faults Comey for his "rash" involvement in the election, Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing operatives to meddle in the election and apathetic voters who only got engaged once the election was over and Trump had won.

But Clinton also blames herself in the book, writing that she did not fully understand the American electorate and failed to understand with the anger that animated Trump.

Clinton said Wednesday that October 28, the day that Comey sent a letter to Congress saying he was reopening part of his investigation into Clinton's emails, was the day she lost the election.

"That was the determinative day because it stopped my momentum," she said. "I don't blame voters for wondering what the heck was going on."

Comey, Clinton added, "forever changed history" by reopening the email investigation just to close it days before Election Day.

"I believe ... it became a perfect storm," Clinton said of Comey and Russia's involvement in the election, adding that she hopes "nobody ever faces what I faced with respect to that."

After the 2000 election, when former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college and the presidency, Clinton also called for an end to the Electoral College.

"I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president," she told reporters at the time.

Rehashing the election

Another person drawing Clinton's ire in what has amounted to her political burn book: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Clinton writes that Sanders' attacks on her caused "lasting damage" and laid the groundwork for Trump's campaign against her. In her interview with CNN, Clinton says the "political sin" Sanders committed was not unifying the party fast enough by dropping out of the race once his campaign was clearly over.

"The political sin he committed was the failure to move quickly to unify the party and his supporters," she said. "It was clear I was going to be the nominee, like, in March or April. It was beyond any doubt in June."

Clinton said she immediately backed Barack Obama in 2008 when her campaign was over, but that she "didn't get that same respect and reciprocity from Sen. Sanders or from his supporters."

"He could be helpful, if he so chose," Clinton said.

Support

Despite the sting of her loss -- and the wrongs Clinton appears eager to right -- the former secretary of state was also hopeful in her interview, particularly when she spoke about the support she has received from her daughter, Chelsea, her husband and other people close to her.

Clinton said she "wanted to make clear" in her book that politics is not everything in life and "pull the curtain back and say, 'I lost a presidential campaign that I thought I was going to win. It was devastating. But I have so many blessings in my life, starting with my husband and the life we've built together.' "

Clinton emotionally reflected on the darker moments of her marriage to former president, conceding that she had to answer "hard questions" about their relationship in the 1990s.

Clinton, describing her marriage in terms she rarely uses, said she "really had to struggle" with their marriage when the Clinton White House was consumed by the former President's affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.

"Anybody alive in America at that time knows how difficult that period was. And, you know, I really had to struggle. And I had a lot of angst," she said. "I had to call back on my faith and my family, my friends."

The candor about her marriage mimics the tone of Clinton's book, where she writes that in the face of the Lewinsky controversy, she asked herself "do I still love him" and "can I still be in this marriage without becoming unrecognizable to myself"?

Clinton told CNN that in the darkest moment of her marriage she resolved not to make "a decision that other people wanted me to make."

"I was going make my decision. And it was based on those two questions and the life we had built together," Clinton said. "And I'm very glad that that's the way I chose to continue my life."

Hillary Clinton: Time to abolish the Electoral College - CNNPolitics

It's astounding how a bunch of insecure little misogynists are still fixated on Clinton. Mummy issues maybe.

Anyway she's right about the Electoral College in any event. It's an anchronism that delivered a President who received near 3,000,000 less votes and is just the kind of thing that makes the U.S. a laughing stock in its self-appointed role as guardian of 'Freedom & Democracy(TM)'.

Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by nearly 3 million votes,

She didn't win the popular vote, its like saying the losing football team (soccer to the heathens) won the most shots at goal. If the election was to be based on the popular vote the strategies, tactics and voting patterns would be entirely different.

Those 2 millions additional votes were definitely "fake"

Hilary lost fair and square !!!

Originally Posted by longway

She didn't win the popular vote

Fake Trumptard News:

It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote - CNNPolitics

Didn't post, and continued to read ant and boys a few times a week.

ant (and other td posters) astounding smugness about the correctness of their opinions is ridiculous.

ant, think about it: an opinion is an opinion. you need to make a strong argument to show your opinion is better.

whenever I challenge your opinion, you usually just go ad-hom (weak).

hope you don't do that again as the mods end up deleting the whole debate to protect your delicate little reputation (you or others report my posts).

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's astounding how a bunch of insecure little misogynists are still fixated on Clinton. Mummy issues maybe.

Anyway she's right about the Electoral College in any event. It's an anchronism that delivered a President who received near 3,000,000 less votes and is just the kind of thing that makes the U.S. a laughing stock in its self-appointed role as guardian of 'Freedom & Democracy(TM)'.

ant, the electoral college makes sense. maybe now for the democrats it doesn't because it doesn't suit them.

but, the u.s. covers many times zones, small states, large states, and the founding fathers knew that an electoral college will give the citizens in all states equal votes, as it were.

so, ant, if your wish comes true (the end of the electoral college), presidential candidates will just have to hang out in ny, california and a few other big states (spending hundreds of millions on ads in those states) and then he/she will be elected president.

anti-Trump tards have been acting hysterical over all this saga, making the usually crazy deep conservatives look almost calm and articulate

yes the popular vote is not fair and should be ignored, but at the same time it looks quite strange not to win an election with one

Originally Posted by longway

She didn't win the popular vote, its like saying the losing football team (soccer to the heathens) won the most shots at goal. If the election was to be based on the popular vote the strategies, tactics and voting patterns would be entirely different.

Have you been getting English lessons from Buttplug?

Of course she won the popular vote, you moron.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's astounding how a bunch of insecure little misogynists are still fixated on Clinton. Mummy issues maybe.

Anyway she's right about the Electoral College in any event. It's an anchronism that delivered a President who received near 3,000,000 less votes and is just the kind of thing that makes the U.S. a laughing stock in its self-appointed role as guardian of 'Freedom & Democracy(TM)'.

Are you calling for proportional representation, or a format better suited to the modern world that grants certified liberals the right to decide who will run the country? Or just having a whine?

She lost, he won, get over it.

Originally Posted by jabir

She lost, he won, get over it.

That was the point of my post.

I'm not the one still obsessing over Clinton am I.

Don't reed two gud do u.

Hillary will die within 4 years.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That was the point of my post.

I'm not the one still obsessing over Clinton am I.

Don't reed two gud do u.

I do, I do, I put together the letters and they sometimes form hole werds. Clinton lost by running the filthiest campaign in modern US elections, and you being a lawyer should be better equipped to figure that breaking the law, lying, cheating, and indulgence in other criminal activities do not become irrelevant once the end goal fails to materialise. Some lawyer!

As for votes cast, assuming there was nothing involved that might concern a real lawyer, a 2 or 3 million lead without the EC would have secured her place in the WH and history, as PotUS of NY, Florida and California.

But snubby agrees with you, so feeel the warmth.

Originally Posted by jabir

I do, I do, I put together the letters and they sometimes form hole werds. Clinton lost by running the filthiest campaign in modern US elections, and you being a lawyer should be better equipped to figure that breaking the law, lying, cheating, and indulgence in other criminal activities do not become irrelevant once the end goal fails to materialise. Some lawyer!

As for votes cast, assuming there was nothing involved that might concern a real lawyer, a 2 or 3 million lead without the EC would have secured her place in the WH and history, as PotUS of NY, Florida and California.

But snubby agrees with you, so feeel the warmth.

What the actual fuck...

You literally just told me "she lost, he won, get over it" and now you're ranting absurdities and falsities about her campaign from last year?!

And quite how you've managed to link me to any of that is an amazing feat of double-pike-with-a-twist-combo logic gymnastics.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

What the actual fuck...

You literally just told me "she lost, he won, get over it" and now you're ranting absurdities and falsities about her campaign from last year?!

And quite how you've managed to link me to any of that is an amazing feat of double-pike-with-a-twist-combo logic gymnastics.

Oh yes she did lose, he did win, and snowflakes the world over should get over it. That, and even lesser minds than that of a lawyer might figure, refers to the election.

Weedle away, but that will not disinfect the person she is or her criminal activities before and during the race, except perhaps in your own perception; or her pathetic 'who me!' attitude since, which culminated in a book absolving her and fingering everyone around her.

But snubby agrees with you, so you may find a nanosecond of comfort in there, somewhere.

"ranting absurdities and falsities about her campaign..."

Stop, stop, it hurts...!

Yeah, now you're just babbling utter nonsense.

It's Sept 2017 and the election was practically a year ago. Get over it.

Not sure what the "Electoral College" means.
Recently I read something about a Robert David Steel (a former spy?) proposing a Electoral Reform.
Anybody knows?

Since all you right wing bozo's can't seem to get enough of Hillary here is something for you sick fucks to wank to;

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yeah, now you're just babbling utter nonsense.

It's Sept 2017 and the election was practically a year ago. Get over it.

That's it, nobody will notice that you were talking incoherent nonsense and just kept digging the hole deeper now.

Well played.