It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary blames ‘millions of white people’ for election loss

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



What would be a valid criticism then? What do you dislike about Hillary?

That's she's a sore loser?

That instead of taking responsibility for her own failings, she blames everything including the kitchen sink?

That she defames those who did not vote for her?

Are those leadership qualities, or does a real leader pick themselves up and move on?




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

What do I dislike about her?

She's dull. She's a policy wonk. She's made some really difficult to understand decisions in her life.

She's lifelong politician, so in my book, she's also a psychopathic liar. She's center right on most policy concerns.

She's a corporatist.

She's no more of a sore loser than anyone else. I've not seen Clinton BLAME anyone or anything. And she has taken responsibility for the loss. She's a member of the elite political class ... of course she's going to analyze.

Defames? Is this the "Deplorables" comment still?

She has "picked herself up" and moved on. She's written a book, she's taking a tour.

If it were on topic, we could compare the "winner's" whining, puling childishness ... but we won't.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

Bullpucky. How many of those do you think there are in Penn, Migh, Wis, Ohio, Ind, etc? The common laborer bailed on her.


The 45% no vote is mainly made up of the working class that is much more focus on their family than anything else. At the end of the day...the wall, Wars, fascist/antifa, stock market, protests etc means little to them as long as they can put food on the table and provide a good life.

Why people think that the non-vote 45% represents left leaning voters itching to vote out Trump is beyond me.....



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
she lost, she needs to get over it and her supporters need to get over it


i find it funny tho that she is campaigning more to sell her book, than she was for running for president...

that should tell what you need to know about her
edit on 11-9-2017 by Jiggly because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2017 by Jiggly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Like it or not, his theme was the old one of nativism which you know as well as I do goes hand in hand with racism/racial superiority, as we've seen with groups like the KKK, Nazis and other White Supremacists feeling that Trump is on their side.


Bullpucky. How many of those do you think there are in Penn, Migh, Wis, Ohio, Ind, etc? The common laborer bailed on her.


How many nativists in the swing states? Around 70K, the amount that Trump won most of those states by?

Are you saying that the populist/nativist theme was not critical to Trump success? Or perhaps that the nativist/racist connection is non-existent?

(I'm not ignoring you, I honestly didn't see this post.)



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why people think that the non-vote 45% represents left leaning voters itching to vote out Trump is beyond me.....


Because even during the Bush years most of those states I mentioned above voted Dem. They bailed on HER. They will probably swing back(or show up) in '20.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
One of the ghastly excuses was that millions of white people voted against her !!



And millions of black people voted against her in 2008.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why people think that the non-vote 45% represents left leaning voters itching to vote out Trump is beyond me.....


Because even during the Bush years most of those states I mentioned above voted Dem. They bailed on HER. They will probably swing back(or show up) in '20.


I would say that's right.

IN the end, a fair analysis was that states like MI, WI, and PA where Trump won by a tiny margin were simply voting against Clinton.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Like it or not, his theme was the old one of nativism which you know as well as I do goes hand in hand with racism/racial superiority, as we've seen with groups like the KKK, Nazis and other White Supremacists feeling that Trump is on their side.


Bullpucky. How many of those do you think there are in Penn, Migh, Wis, Ohio, Ind, etc? The common laborer bailed on her.


How many nativists in the swing states? Around 70K, the amount that Trump won most of those states by?

Are you saying that the populist/nativist theme was not critical to Trump success?


No, that was his whole platform imo.


Or perhaps that the nativist/racist connection is non-existent?


There is a connection but overblown. There are many(most) that were more concerned with their own lot. That doesn't make them racist.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not "Deplorables", this...

“I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president,” she told Jane Pauley. “It doesn’t fit into the– the stereotypes we all carry around in our head. And a lot of the sexism and the misogyny was in service of these attitudes. Like, you know, ‘We really don’t want a woman commander in chief.'”


I personally think a lot of this is to take attention away from her illegal activities out of concern for her place in history and not wanting the emails and using the private server for government business to avoid FOIA to define her, as it will. 100 years from now, that is what will be highlighted in the history books.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: xuenchen
One of the ghastly excuses was that millions of white people voted against her !!



And millions of black people voted against her in 2008.



She just can't win for losi'n !!

Poor thing.

But she's very dangerous because of the PAC money she's soliciting.




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Jiggly




i find it finally tho that she is campaigning more to sell her book, than she was for running for president... that should tell what you need to know about her

I agree.

How many other unsuccessful candidates wrote a book to explain their loss after they lost the white house?
Perhaps hillary will get a pepsi ad as well?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And the ones who didn't vote at all.




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well this old commercial has an actress that looks like Hillary !!


The 20-second mark is perfect.




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not "Deplorables", this...

“I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president,” she told Jane Pauley. “It doesn’t fit into the– the stereotypes we all carry around in our head. And a lot of the sexism and the misogyny was in service of these attitudes. Like, you know, ‘We really don’t want a woman commander in chief.'”


I personally think a lot of this is to take attention away from her illegal activities out of concern for her place in history and not wanting the emails and using the private server for government business to avoid FOIA to define her, as it will. 100 years from now, that is what will be highlighted in the history books.


I don't know of anyone who didn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman. I think that was an issue for some, just as Obama's race was an issue for some and Bush II's religion was an issue for some and so on.

What more attention could be given to her "illegal activities" than the multiple investigations by people who hate her that we've already seen?

Nah, Clinton will be a footnote in history a hundred years from now, perhaps slightly more memorable than Thomas Dewey.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

And the ones who didn't vote at all.



The ones that didn't vote at all ... accomplished what exactly?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Don't count her out, yet. She said she was not going to run again after 2008, too. Dozens of times.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"what the people wanted."




That is the problem, you are banking everything on 2.8 million votes from a State that outvoted Trump by 4 million as to what "The People Wanted". Last time I look We the People is everyone and when 70%+ of the people didn't vote for Hillary, and 70%+ of the people didn't vote for Trump your seemingly victory of the popular vote means nothing...



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Think of it more like this: its what the people wanted, once you try to make corrections for pools of group think that would be present in any population.

I know it seems unfair to some. But the reality is that New York City, LA, and Chicago shouldn't be the national swing on policy for people in areas not even in their states. Its a contested point that the nation was set up to have a bottom up governmental strategy rather than top down, and people in rural areas are definitely on one side of this vs urban areas who would like federal $$$ to help with local problems.

Im not sure there is a perfect answer without Article V being brought to bear. And again, it'll come down to rural vs urban interests. I really think the rural and urban dynamic is a major issue in the US, and its being completely ignored in favor of race issues that, in the end, won't have anywhere near the impact on our country. The election keeps being painted as one of race and white nationals. They make up such a small portion of the country (and lets be honest...there are pro white agenda folks on both sides, albeit less on the left) that they couldn't have had an impact. The election was about rural vs urban. It was about returning some attention to the economic suffering of people in dying rural communities ravaged by outsourcing and the last economic collapse. That is what 2016 was about. Race is something stoked up by the "old hat" Democrats, who have used nothing but race (and shouts of racist) for the last several years. Its why your average every day white nationalist rally (which have happened and been ignored for the last several decades) was brought into the national spotlight.

I can not believe that it isn't all contrived. The average every day American doesn't care about race at all. We are only thinking about it because media keeps shoving it in our faces instead of focusing on issues that are truly killing America. This addiction to scrutinizing the extremes of ideology, then projecting out to the masses, is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



I was thinking of this one.




top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join