• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

And Now For The Comedy Thread Section....Hillary Now Blames Bernie For Her Loss

Mister Silver

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
Wirey said:
Speaking as an outsider, it appears to me that the DNC greatly underestimated how sick and tired Americans are with the two parties and how desperate they were to find someone, anyone, who wasn't part of the establishment. Bernie would have beaten Trump like a Baltimore cop on a minority suspect. I doubt Bernie supporters stayed home because they didn't get Bernie. They stayed home because they could think and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Girl Dubya.... Hillary.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, they stayed home because they couldn't vote for Trump or Hillary.

Hillary would have been the better option, but they acted like spoiled kids who weren't going to cast a vote when Bernie was cast aside.
 
Last edited:
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Wirey said:
Bernie would have beaten Trump like a Baltimore cop on a minority suspect.
Click to expand...
You Canadians are so naive.
Bernie never won an election outside of Vermont because his platform doesn't play in Peoria. That's also why he refused to support the DNC for all those decades.
But the Queen of the Democratic Party gave him a place at the table. And then she lost the most shoe-in election since 2008. To Trump! You can bet that the DNC won't make that mistake again. There will be no more Socialists running as Democrats. They'll have to start their own party, while the Republocrats in office do everything in their power to make the Socialists look ridiculously unelectable like Sanders.

Bernie's supporters brought this unfortunate state of affairs to be. They are just a little too politically naive, apathetic, and ill informed to matter.
Tom
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
columbus said:
Except that isn't what happened.
A better analogy would be:
Suppose the rules of the game make every white player's run equal two black player's runs. Everyone knows the rules in advance, so the winning team considers this fair and refers to the losing team as "crybabies".
Tom
Click to expand...

I think my analogy is better. Either way, even despite the "rules of the game," if the Democrats put a better pitcher on the mound, they would have won.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Stevicus said:
I think my analogy is better. Either way, even despite the "rules of the game," if the Democrats put a better pitcher on the mound, they would have won.
Click to expand...
I don't think your analogy is better, myself.
But, nevertheless, had they gotten 10 million more votes in California, Illinois, New York and Vermont, the results would be the same. The problem is the rigged system, not the competence of Clinton.
Tom
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
columbus said:
It was analogy about a rigged system where voters in Wyoming have nearly four times the voting power of a Californian voter, in the Presidential "election" .
Click to expand...

Maybe, although this would also point up the immense power of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who ostensibly decide who the candidates will be even before voters in other states get the opportunity to choose. As Boss Tweed said, "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating."

In any case, Wyoming only has a paltry 3 electoral votes, while California has a whopping 55 electoral votes. I haven't done the math, but I can't quite see how this would indicate that Wyoming voters have four times the voting power of California voters.

Besides, the election wasn't really decided in Wyoming. It was states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan which made the difference.
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
columbus said:
I don't think your analogy is better, myself.
But, nevertheless, had they gotten 10 million more votes in California, Illinois, New York and Vermont, the results would be the same. The problem is the rigged system, not the competence of Clinton.
Tom
Click to expand...

But another half million votes in Ohio, 50,000 votes in PA, or just 10,000 votes in MI would have changed the results entirely.

EDIT: Even in my state of AZ, it was a difference of 90,000 votes, although we only have a mere 11 electoral votes.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
columbus said:
I don't think your analogy is better, myself.
But, nevertheless, had they gotten 10 million more votes in California, Illinois, New York and Vermont, the results would be the same. The problem is the rigged system, not the competence of Clinton.
Tom
Click to expand...
Let me translate that post into the more efficient Revoltistanian.....
"Waaaahhhhh!"


What?
Several of you object?
Hey, he practically invited me to post this!
It would've been rude not to.
 
tytlyf

tytlyf

Not Religious
Stevicus said:
Well, the RNC won. That's what they did.

As an analogy, consider a baseball game. If a team chooses to put its worse players in the game and ends up losing, then that's what happens. You can't really blame the other team for actually wanting to win. If the DNC wanted to win, then they should have put in Bernie, regardless of their personal feelings about him being "not a Democrat." Why should they care about that, when the election is on the line?
Click to expand...
That's not what I was referring to. The RNC did everything they could to make sure Trump could not win the republican nomination. Even telling people they can't vote in their own states.

The RNC is republican establishment. They're the ones sabotaging Trump from the inside. And he goes off and hires/fires Priebus. Some people are clueless.
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Underhill

Underhill

Well-Known Member
With all this wrangling over how silly she is being, I see no evidence that she is actually wrong.

She admits plenty of wrongdoing, mainly underestimating Trump and trying to play nice while he was playing the tyrant. She is right.

There is no doubt that Bernie hurt her in some big ways. But again, the party was blindsided by just how much support Bernie received. I'm sure they expected him to be a minor player in the primaries while Bernie was out for blood.

I certainly don't want her to run again. But from what I have seen her analysis is spot on.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wirey said:
That genius one is weird. She seems to be claiming she was the underdog and trump was the front runner.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the stereotypical feminist view, ie, the woman is always at the disadvantage.
She was anointed by her party, who conspired to neuter Bernie.
She spent more money. She had most media in her pocket.
He was opposed by many better candidates, & was despised by his own party.
And he had the innumerable advantages?'
Go figure.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Underhill said:
With all this wrangling over how silly she is being, I see no evidence that she is actually wrong.

She admits plenty of wrongdoing, mainly underestimating Trump and trying to play nice while he was playing the tyrant. She is right.

There is no doubt that Bernie hurt her in some big ways. But again, the party was blindsided by just how much support Bernie received. I'm sure they expected him to be a minor player in the primaries while Bernie was out for blood.

I certainly don't want her to run again. But from what I have seen her analysis is spot on.
Click to expand...
In every election, there is typically a plethora of reasons why one candidate won, & the other lost.
Had Trump lost, he too could've recited a litany of reasons.
Some are reasons....some are mere excuses.
Some reasons, had they not been there, could possibly have changed the end result.
But no one really knows.
Ultimately, the candidate him/herself is the driving force in finding success or failure.
So unless there's some deus ex machina intervention or equivalent.....boo hoo hoo.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Stevicus said:
Genius? Wile E. Coyote was a genius. He even had business cards printed up "have brain will travel."
In Hillary's case, something may have gone wrong with those ACME voting machines.
Click to expand...
I shall forever imagine Hillary's voice as....
 
Underhill

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
In every election, there is typically a plethora of reasons why one candidate won, & the other lost.
Had Trump lost, he too could've recited a litany of reasons.
Some are reasons....some are mere excuses.
Some reasons, had they not been there, could possibly have changed the end result.
But no one really knows.
Ultimately, the candidate him/herself is the driving force in finding success or failure.
So unless there's some deus ex machina intervention or equivalent.....boo hoo hoo.
Click to expand...

Like, for example, a country putting false information on Facebook, or hacking one sides computers, or perhaps even tampering with voting machines... gotcha.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Underhill said:
Like, for example, a country putting false information on Facebook, or hacking one sides computers, or perhaps even tampering with voting machines... gotcha.
Click to expand...
You think any one of those things changed the result?
You think Trump didn't also have the vagaries of determined opposition work against him too?
The election could've easily gone either way.
This is normal.
To wallow in could'a should'a what-ifs is weak.
To wallow in blaming others is weak.
Hillary is weak.

People upset over a loss will see all the factors that worked against them.
It helps them feel like they've been victimized....to endure injustice.
Consider that the other side would've seen it the identical way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top