Hillary lost, get over it already holy shit

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Apr 21 2018 08:04am

It was her turn buddy, popular vote

#hotsauce

Yeah, compared to Trump rambling and bomb throwing, Hillary's rallies were boring. If you wanted to hear nuanced policy, Hillary was the person, not Trump. Trump was more entertaining to watch, which is why CNN covered all his shit.

Those voters came out for Trump because they liked him personally, and they liked his simplistic policy proposals. They were easy to understand, no doubt about it.

Trump is an over dramatic Cheeto and will be stepped on my the shoe of Soros.

Wow hes not even out of office and the Trumpers are trying to rewrite history

Trump is our obama

And let me guess, the point is supposed to be that the dastardly media gave Trump free publicity that swung the election because its better ratings to focus on his verbal bombs than to televise Hillary waffling about her vague undefined policy points in empty rallies or boring town halls? Lets be real: The media was focusing on what Hillary's campaign told them to focus on. Many were literally passing their stories through her campaign headquarters before publishing, a conspicuous favor not extended to Trump. That free publicity consisted of non-stop media assaults on Trump and a lynch squad against him accusing him of being sexist, racist, islamophobic, antisemitic, bigoted, etc etc. They pulled out all the stops and CNN was acting as a 24/7 Clinton News Network that didn't have to write its expenses to the FEC.

I read through Hillary's campaign proposals on her website, I listened to what little she said at debates. She intentionally avoided taking strong positions or promising concrete policy points that she could be later called out on, or promised those that everyone knew she was lying about like TPP. Most of it was just that sort of vague ill defined DNC platform jumble of social/political pandering. She's going to do something about criminal justice reform, she wants to look at TPP again now that its unpopular, she wants to make healthcare affordable, 'a fair tax system', 'an economy that works for everyone', 'end campus sexual assault', 'disability rights'. I've seen better defined policy inside fortune cookies. Her website basically was a list of issues that was important to demographics she wanted to pander to and had no actual plans to address any of them. The reason that policies like 'ban travel from muslim countries' and 'build a wall' and 'end TPP' and 'end NAFTA' appeal to people isn't just because it can be written on a 3x5 notecard and messaged properly, its not just because its simplistic, its because it creates promises that a politician can be held to. If Hillary had gotten into office, we all know that whatever she was going to do about 'criminal justice reform' is whatever was politically convenient at the time and appeased her special interests and voting demographics. She would revert to being a superpredator bashing three-strikes-law dragon lady in a heartbeat if she thought her 2020 opponent would run Willie Horton ads against her. Did anyone, anywhere in America actually believe Hillary was against TPP?

Whats more important, for issues where Hillary just embraced the generic DNC policy platform and listed specific uncontroversial bills she supports or spending she ostensibly planned like '

And let me guess, the point is supposed to be that the dastardly media gave Trump free publicity that swung the election because its better ratings to focus on his verbal bombs than to televise Hillary waffling about her vague undefined policy points in empty rallies or boring town halls? Lets be real: The media was focusing on what Hillary's campaign told them to focus on. Many were literally passing their stories through her campaign headquarters before publishing, a conspicuous favor not extended to Trump. That free publicity consisted of non-stop media assaults on Trump and a lynch squad against him accusing him of being sexist, racist, islamophobic, antisemitic, bigoted, etc etc. They pulled out all the stops and CNN was acting as a 24/7 Clinton News Network that didn't have to write its expenses to the FEC.

I read through Hillary's campaign proposals on her website, I listened to what little she said at debates. She intentionally avoided taking strong positions or promising concrete policy points that she could be later called out on, or promised those that everyone knew she was lying about like TPP. Most of it was just that sort of vague ill defined DNC platform jumble of social/political pandering. She's going to do something about criminal justice reform, she wants to look at TPP again now that its unpopular, she wants to make healthcare affordable, 'a fair tax system', 'an economy that works for everyone', 'end campus sexual assault', 'disability rights'. I've seen better defined policy inside fortune cookies. Her website basically was a list of issues that was important to demographics she wanted to pander to and had no actual plans to address any of them. The reason that policies like 'ban travel from muslim countries' and 'build a wall' and 'end TPP' and 'end NAFTA' appeal to people isn't just because it can be written on a 3x5 notecard and messaged properly, its not just because its simplistic, its because it creates promises that a politician can be held to. If Hillary had gotten into office, we all know that whatever she was going to do about 'criminal justice reform' is whatever was politically convenient at the time and appeased her special interests and voting demographics. She would revert to being a superpredator bashing three-strikes-law dragon lady in a heartbeat if she thought her 2020 opponent would run Willie Horton ads against her. Did anyone, anywhere in America actually believe Hillary was against TPP?

Whats more important, for issues where Hillary just embraced the generic DNC policy platform and listed specific uncontroversial bills she supports or spending she ostensibly planned like '

And let me guess, the point is supposed to be that the dastardly media gave Trump free publicity that swung the election because its better ratings to focus on his verbal bombs than to televise Hillary waffling about her vague undefined policy points in empty rallies or boring town halls? Lets be real: The media was focusing on what Hillary's campaign told them to focus on. Many were literally passing their stories through her campaign headquarters before publishing, a conspicuous favor not extended to Trump. That free publicity consisted of non-stop media assaults on Trump and a lynch squad against him accusing him of being sexist, racist, islamophobic, antisemitic, bigoted, etc etc. They pulled out all the stops and CNN was acting as a 24/7 Clinton News Network that didn't have to write its expenses to the FEC.

I read through Hillary's campaign proposals on her website, I listened to what little she said at debates. She intentionally avoided taking strong positions or promising concrete policy points that she could be later called out on, or promised those that everyone knew she was lying about like TPP. Most of it was just that sort of vague ill defined DNC platform jumble of social/political pandering. She's going to do something about criminal justice reform, she wants to look at TPP again now that its unpopular, she wants to make healthcare affordable, 'a fair tax system', 'an economy that works for everyone', 'end campus sexual assault', 'disability rights'. I've seen better defined policy inside fortune cookies. Her website basically was a list of issues that was important to demographics she wanted to pander to and had no actual plans to address any of them. The reason that policies like 'ban travel from muslim countries' and 'build a wall' and 'end TPP' and 'end NAFTA' appeal to people isn't just because it can be written on a 3x5 notecard and messaged properly, its not just because its simplistic, its because it creates promises that a politician can be held to. If Hillary had gotten into office, we all know that whatever she was going to do about 'criminal justice reform' is whatever was politically convenient at the time and appeased her special interests and voting demographics. She would revert to being a superpredator bashing three-strikes-law dragon lady in a heartbeat if she thought her 2020 opponent would run Willie Horton ads against her. Did anyone, anywhere in America actually believe Hillary was against TPP?

Whats more important, for issues where Hillary just embraced the generic DNC policy platform and listed specific uncontroversial bills she supports or spending she ostensibly planned like 'Invest in building world-class American airports', it was her campaign's conscious choice to not build her messaging around it. Whatever few positions she held, she neglected to get out there despite having all the pull in the media, a billion in campaign funds, vastly disproportionate ad time and time in the debates. It was her decision to run a negative campaign and neglect policy messaging in favor of smearing Trump. It no doubt looked like an attractive option for an easy campaign, expending less political capital by making less promises and supposedly being more effective at sealing the deal. The reason America didn't hear about Hillary's policies isn't because Americans are dumb and tune it out, its because she didn't run on policy. Her husband did. Look at what James Carville did with 'Its the economy, stupid'. Trump did. And people listened. If Hillary had wanted to run a policy campaign, her strategists would have boiled it down to a 3x5, built memes, plastered it on billboards, made it talked about in every house. They didnt'

lol I just noticed that copy/paste flub and went back to it right as the edit timer expired for no JSP stars. Looks like the full text got vacuumed into the pasted hillary policy line. It should be;

says an election-denier